RT @TWERadio: JPMorgan Chase & Washington's anti-capitalist impulse, plus Obama campaign rips Romney for his work at Bain Capital ht ...
Click to Print
Include Comments
Ayn Rand vs. Jesus Christ
How can Christians admire the philosophy of Ayn Rand?
This is the question being asked by a group of left-wing theologians and religious activists under the banner of the American Values Network. They claim that both Rand and conservative Christian stalwart Chuck Colson demand that people choose between her teachings and the teachings of Jesus. Politicians popular with conservatives and Christians—perhaps most notably House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis.—are the group’s targets.
Anyone who has a passing familiarity with Rand’s moral philosophy, known as Objectivism, sees the conflict with Christianity. Whereas the Christian is called to an other-orientation—toward God and his neighbor—the Objectivist extols a self-orientation. The Christian is called to embrace the love of God; the Objectivist embraces love of self.
But Rand’s novels—most popularly Atlas Shrugged—skewer with such exquisite detail and insight those who aggrandize state power, advocates of individual liberty and limited government can’t help but cheer. Consider this from one of her fictional heroes:
“So you think that money is the root of all evil? . . . Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can’t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?”
But then her Atlas Shrugged’s hero, John Galt, has this to say:
“For centuries, the battle of morality was fought between those who claimed that your life belongs to God and those who claimed that it belongs to your neighbors—between those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of ghosts in heaven and those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of incompetents on earth. And no one came to say that your life belongs to you and that the good is to live it.”
The capitalist cheers the first Rand quote, but the Christian must—if he adheres to Christ’s commandment that we love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, and that we love our neighbor as ourself—reject the second quote. Hence the dilemma for the Christian who lauds Rand.
It’s an interesting question, though as Reason columnist David Harsanyi observes, those asking it are probably not all that concerned about Rand’s lack of consonance with Christian theology. Perhaps Atlantic writer Conor Friedersdorf has the best reply:
“. . . calling Ayn Rand ‘brilliant,’ as Rush Limbaugh is quoted doing, or labeling yourself ‘a fan’ of her work, like Rand Paul, doesn’t mean that you embrace every tenet of her philosophy, never mind her every statement about Jesus Christ or the Christian religion.”
What do you think? Does Rand’s militant anti-Christianity render her so repugnant that you can find nothing redeeming in her work? Or have you managed to reconcile what her enemies on the Christian left insist should not be reconcilable?
back to top182 Comments to “Ayn Rand vs. Jesus Christ”
First of all, it is the LOVE of money that is the root of all evil. So, she starts out on a false premise.
Not hard to choose.
You can make a great income and not be at odds with Christ. It’s what you do with that income that may cause problems.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer, You beat me to it. That was the first thing that jumped out at me too.
It is a wrong heart condition that is evil, not the object of money itself.
Report comment to moderator
Jesus said it was easier for a rich man to go through the eye of the needle — he didn’t say it was impossible. And as we all know, with God, all things are possible.
Report comment to moderator
Love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.
Report comment to moderator
This is the question being asked by a group of left-wing theologians and religious activists under the banner of the American Values Network.
—
These are the same people who embarce the killing of babies and gay rights. So that stop them from being take serious in regards to the Christian and the Christian Faith,..
Report comment to moderator
Christ’s Gospel isn’t the how-to Manual for Socialism which Jim Wallis’ Sojourners and others see it as.
I think Rand would oppose anyone making an idol out of wealth.
You must recall that she barely escaped from Lenin’s Russia. Prior to that the Russian peasantry had seen the state-controlled Orthodox church as a tool of the Czarist oppression.
She was a libertine free love practitioner who extolled abortion “rights” [dont those 2 often go hand in hand?] and never had any children either.
Parenthood, now that is the ultimate cure for selfish self-absorption.
Report comment to moderator
Odd how the left-wing theologians don’t know the love of money quote. Just sayin’.
Report comment to moderator
I forgot — they rewrite the Bible for their convenience
Report comment to moderator
One part of the foolishness of the recent debates about Rand is the idea that agreeing with Rand’s prediction and diagnoses in “Atlas Shrugged” – the accuracy of which has been demonstrated in the last few years to a nicety – somehow magically commits one to agreement with her total philosophy. Would this argument be extended to an atheist leftist who recommends Tolstoy or Victor Hugo?
The other part is a specific misrepresentation of Christianity. Christianity is not a pro-Statism religion; indeed, given who killed their Savior, it tends to the anti-State. (This is something the left has not yet dealt with.) Nowhere in the Bible does it say that wealth should be expropriated and redistributed by the dubious means of government structures; it speaks of personal and *voluntary* charity. One might add, looking at the horrific debt and unfunded liabilities situation that the U.S. is in right now, that the Bible and Jesus were wise in staying away from government panaceas.
This entire kabuki charade is in bad faith. The Bible does not advocate any Progressive notions of “economic justice.” The progressives who have suddenly discovered religion and its necessary role in politics – after thirty decades and more of stridently and rightly insisting it must be kept out of politics – are not sincere. After this temporary rhetorical bubble is over, they will resume their previous, also ad-hoc, declarations.
As for the “sociopath” accusation, this is what comes of copying attack website garbage. The whole thing rests upon one author – Michael Prescott’s – highly selective excerpting and chopping up of a private [i.e., thinking out loud without clarifications ] journal written when Rand was barely out of her teens, fresh from the blood bath of 1920s Soviet Russia – and still made it very clear that her read on the personalities of the observers showed that they were not appalled by Hickman’s crime – she said there had been far worse, without the same spectacle of glee – but by his flamboyant and mocking defiance of society. She – who was writing about a *legally innocent man* at the time of the trial – even called him a repulsive and purposeless criminal. Enough with the disinformation and – yes – Satanizing of Ayn Rand.
Report comment to moderator
The current issue of Christanity Today has an interesting essay by an Episcopal bishop on how Ayn Rand’s writings inadvertently led him to saving faith in Christ.
Report comment to moderator
Tony,
There most definitely is a context in which a huge block of Christians from both left and right can find common ground, and there is a powerful historical precedent for it, namely Deism. Many of the Founding Fathers, including the important ones like Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, and Paine were not at all Christians in the mold of present day fundamentalists. They believed in God at an arm’s length—the “clockmaker” creator who put the universe here and us in it with reason as our means to survive and thrive.
There are throngs of Christians who pay lip service to prayer and faith, but who live their everyday lives by their God-given capacity of reason, usually in the form of good old “common sense.” Since most have no cohesive philosophy disciplining their judgments, they are easy prey to rationalization. The incredible scope and efficacy of Rand’s philosophy and its capacity to explain relationships across broad spectrums from ethics to politics to esthetics, is a temptation few “common sense” people can resist. It will be for many quite easy to rationalize away the contradiction infested religions, and embrace the idea that “God is watching me to see how well I use his gift of reason to perfect my life.”
Such a person would have no trouble preferring “Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand” as their Bible over the King James. And even on belief in God there would be way less disagreement than you think. Your characterization of her as a “militant atheist” is grossly incorrect. Rather, she was militant over the rejection of reason as man’s only source of knowledge entailed in believing in God on faith alone.
Rand recognized an important fact about knowledge—that it is contextual. That nothing can be knowledge in the absence of evidence, even if it actually exists, metaphysically, and will be known later when we have the ability to gain the necessary evidence to confirm it. The best example would be life on distant galaxies of which we have no evidence and therefore no knowledge. To believe that they are there on faith would be ridiculous to any rational person. It does not mean they are not there at all. It means that until one has evidence, it is a useless notion.
Similarly, the notion of a creator is useless without evidence, not to mention the fact that many associated notions such as a supernatural existent when to exist means to be natural. Or that a god created the universe and somehow pre-existed it. But any pre-existing thing would have been itself the universe in that case…etc.
So a theist who would entertain the notion of a God, but not allow it to disrupt the functioning of his reason could fit quite well into a new tradition with Thomas Aquinas on one end and Ayn Rand on the other. Indeed there is a growing presence on the web blogs of Catholic Objectivists. As an adult-life long Objectivist who found my transition from a rigorous Catholicism to Objectivism over 40 years ago to be quite easy, and subsequently rewarding beyond all expectations. I can only suggest to her knee-jerk critics everywhere to beware underestimating the efficacy of her thinking.
Report comment to moderator
Many are called, but few are chosen.
Straight is the way, narrow the gate, and few there by who find it.
Report comment to moderator
MEANWHILE
Pelosi made millions in this economy.
Why?
How?
A ticket to DC is a NO QUESTIONS ASKED ticket to MONEY–even if you get caught.
Report comment to moderator
I wrote the article in the September issue of Christianity Today about Rand. Chuck indeed liked it, perhaps as he saw first hand in Nixon the dangers of allowing political pragmatism to trump traditional morality. And he is not the only conservative Chrfistian who is most afriad of Rand. I grew up fundamentalist Southern Baptist, was a life-long Republican, obtained a degree in political science and served on Jack Kemp’s board of directors before warning of Rand during the mid-nineties and since. Yet I recently re-registered as an independent because God’s Own Party insists on syncretizing Rand. Even Rush Limbaugh once published a cartoon of “The Religious Left” bowing down to a bust of Marx on an altar. As psychologists know, we always criticize others for our own unresolved conflicts. How desperate some Christians are to rationalize Rand rather than rely on the holistic teachings of scripture (wouldn’t Rand love that?!)about mixing Christianity with pagan ideas was clearly demonstrated when World turned to Reason and The Atlantic to justify such syncretism, with ideas from a woman who openly aspired to be the anti-Christ no less. If the GOP truly believes Christ’s teaching that we can’t serve two masters, it had better excommunicate the radical Randists as soon as possible. Otherwise, more of those who believe and act on Paul’s teachings about honoring and respecting government in Romans 13 and about “moderation in all things” secular may conduct an exodus of their own. That is only more likely if conservative Christian leaders are also deceived by the anti-Christ in these supposed last days, as the Bible prophesies.
Report comment to moderator
The Biblical concept of God as the omnipotent, omniscient Creator of all that is or ever will be supports the assertion that “All truth is God’s truth”. It doesn’t matter who says it – if it’s true, it is God’s truth. Just as God can use the labor of unbelievers in their ignorance to His glory, so He can also use the intellects of unbelievers to ponder and communicate great truths while remaining ignorant of greater truths. But we do need to use great caution in gleaning truth from unbelievers; Any good liar knows that the best lies are intricately woven with great truths. And even when this disquising and Trojan horse delivery of lies may not be the goal of a human author, the father of lies could be guiding the pen through that human author.
Report comment to moderator
“If the GOP truly believes Christ’s teaching that we can’t serve two masters, ….”
You think they believe that?
Report comment to moderator
To NJLAWYER: Not at all. That’s why they were so fond of Alan Greenspan, who was in Rand’s inner circle, as they asked God to bless America. Yes, Clinton loved him too, which is why I didn’t go Democrat. Greenspan, who amused even Rand by not being sure he existed, first deregulated the S&L’s and then ignored Einstein’s definition of insanity by doing the same favor for Wall Street’s sub-prime underwriters. All because, as he told Congress, he believed Rand’s radical idea that self-interest would regulate the world. There’s a new documentary entitled The Flaw on that very subject. I understand the typical businessperson is weary of regulation and taxes. But there are enough biblical cautions about that we don’t need to rely on Rand’s insanity. The irony is most conservative Christians who quote Rand also hate Wall Street and its bailout. But Rand was definitely an economic elitist.
Report comment to moderator
Good. Just checkin’. I don’t believe they have a Christ following bone in their collective body.
Report comment to moderator
It is impossible to understand Ayn Rand without reading her books. If you get your opinions from second hand sources, then they are usually wrong.
Rand thought she came up with a new philosophy and people often attribute her with creating something new. It wasn’t new at all. Objectivism is quite simply existentialism with a purpose. The purpose is to “be all you can be” as the Army slogan goes. If you love architecture or making steal, then build the best buildings and make the best steal and ascend to the highest heights of your potential.
It is amusing to see how wrong Rand was about Christianity and yet to see her espousing principles which aren’t far off. A Christian would say “be all God would have you to be”. Fulfill your God given purpose.
Rand’s arch-enemy was collectivism which is contrary to individualism. One’s purpose is to serve the state and not ascend to the heights of your potential, but the state’s. The state is run by moochers, lawyers and politicians who produce nothing but feed off of the productivity of others. In the name of fairness and equity they destroy prosperity.
Rand viewed Christianity as a tool of the state, as the opiate of the people, which demands self-sacrifice and service of others. This was the greatest evil in Rand’s view. She got it wrong.
Serving God is a personal, individual aspiration. Service of others is not an end in itself. Service of God is the fulfillment of one’s maximum potential and it goes far beyond concrete and steal, the stuff of this life.
Existentialists are not wrong. The problem is their view is too narrow. Solomon, the wisest man in history aside from Christ spoke of things under the sun. Vanity of vanities.
If the seculum, the mundus, i.e. the (secular, mundane) world is all there is, then existentialism is the truest philosophy around. It accurately captures the vanity of existence and proposes no hope other than to burn brightly before your light is snuffed out.
Solomon went on to explain that there is another dimension to life above the sun, i.e. a spiritual dimension which gives life meaning even beyond the grave. I pity Rand for never having embraced this wisdom. Her philosophy, i.e. plain old existentialism, is quite good for materialists. But reality is more than the rudiments of this world and its vain philosophies.
Report comment to moderator
*steel, not steal. Sorry.
Report comment to moderator
Adherence to the first of Jesus’ two commandments enables the christian to live the second commandment. Do not get the cart before the horse or think that one excludes the other.
Report comment to moderator
I tend to rely more on the Scottish moral philosopher ADAM SMITH than Ayn Rand.
Many on this board would do good to visit old Adam.
He had no illusions. He said quite clearly that if businessmen can alter the govt so that govt regs or subsidies etc give them a COMPETITIVE advantage they will do it. They will write tariffs to favor domestic vs overseas producers. They will impose licensure requiremts to keep folks from entering into a lucrative field since doing so would undercut their profits. In that sense, a fully de-regulated market would indeed keep folks honest and be self-regulating.
Govt sanctioned monopoly in any good or service is something I believe Rand and Smith saw as evil. Paradoxically Rand the atheist recognized this effect of a fallen sinful world. Smith the Christian saw its cause and effect!
Report comment to moderator
MichaelM
The founding fathers kept God at arms length? When they were planning battle strategies? In the throes of battle? In the White House? While writing the Constitution? The Declaration of Independence? Don’t think so.
Report comment to moderator
We have shelf after shelf of statute books containing laws drafted by men employed by big businesses. They or their lobbysist give money and elect legislators to enact the laws. The laws result in more money flowing to the big businesses. The profiteering industries in turn “recycle” the money thru PAC campaigns to re-elect their legislative friendlies.
How do we get the big money out of politics?
Get the big politics out of the money!!
A govt that spends way less, does far fewer favors, and term limits its legislators might at least slow down the cycle or decrease its magnitude, no??
Report comment to moderator
#23 Tuffone3
You said it. My thoughts exactly.
Perhaps someone needs to change out the bong water!!???
Report comment to moderator
Think about this message for a second and ask yourself whether or not it is powerful.
Your lifespan is fixed. Are you living up to your potential? Are you doing all the things you possibly could, the best way you know how? Are you maximizing every moment? Are you being all you can be? Are you running the race with patience? Are you redeeming the time?
I don’t know what you all think of this, but for me it is like getting kicked in the gut. Don’t waste your life! What great potential you have! Time is short! Redeem it!
Is there any message for an individual more powerful than this?
Report comment to moderator
Rand was VERY aware that the verse is actually “the Love of money is the root of all evil.” To that, here is how one of her heroes responds:
”Or did you say it’s the _love_ of money that’s the root of all evil? To love a thing is to know and love its nature. To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the creation of the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your effort for the effort of the best among men. It’s the person who would sell his soul for a nickel, who is the loudest in proclaiming his hatred of money – and he has good reason to hate it. The lovers of money are willing to work for it. They know they are able to deserve it.”
The above is part of a well-known passage in ATLAS SHRUGGED that is Google-able in full as “Francisco’s money speech.”
Report comment to moderator
Too many forget that there are more Founders than Jefferson, Madison, Washington. There are a lot of names at the bottom of that declaration.
Report comment to moderator
I started reading some of the shallow moralism on the American Values Network. They have a point in one sense, that Rand opposed Christianity. The issue is that Rand and her critics are too shallow.
I highlighted the essence of Rand’s so-called philosophy in #26 and nothing could be more powerful or more fundamental to the individual human soul. No Christian would disagree.
Truths which are fundamental to the human soul cannot be contrary to Christianity. Rand’s problem, and that of all existentialists, is that they take spirituality off the table. This does not invalidate fundamental truths which both Christians and existentialists would agree on.
Christians aren’t constrained by the materialism of this life. They don’t stop at the Gates of Heaven, but walk right through.
Report comment to moderator
I had a teenage infatuation with Rand’s writings. Her ideas are perfect for teen boys who refuse to accept responsibility or have any degree of empathy for their fellow humans. Some adults never matured past the high school mentality hence her continued popularity.
Report comment to moderator
The appeal to the Founders, pro or con, is misplaced. They are not our moral authority. Scripture is.
Report comment to moderator
Christians can learn a lot from Rand by juxtaposing the Christian ethic from Objectivism. Rand’s philosophy is nothing more than rationalism pushed to its extreme, based on the assumption that humans are basically self-interested. It should be recognized and appreciated that free markets are the single best way for interpersonal relationships to be arranged. The problem to most Christians is that the least of these get neglected by markets.
But this is precisely to the point. Why should a rational self-interested person care about the least of these at all? Empathy is capable of motivating many behaviors, and the Objectivist need not reject empathy, but it might not extend to the elderly or otherwise invalid. That is, those who have no value and no potential of having any value to others.
The Christian, on the other hand, has a different nature. Regeneration brings with it a change from self-interest to Christ interest. In that case, the believer can take a legitimate and rational interest in the least of these, whom have value to God.
The problem is when Christians perceive the state as the appropriate vehicle for exercising love for the least of these. Only Christians can rationally give of themselves out of pure love volitionally.
Report comment to moderator
First, let’s dispel the notion that only a person who is a fundamentalist Christian can ever say something true. If a math teacher in a public school is an atheist, he is still correct when he tells students that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Rand was an atheist. That doesn’t mean that everything that she said was wrong. In fact, it doesn’t even mean that most things that she said were wrong.
Second, let’s dispel the notion that a person is automatically wrong because he or she lives an immoral life. If a preacher is caught in adultery, it doesn’t mean that everything that he ever preached was wrong. It’s true that Rand’s life was far from the Christian ideal of sexual purity, but let he or she that is without sin cast the first stone.
Wouldn’t it be nice if instead of condemning Rand, we analyze her philosohpy and decide which, if any, points are right and which, if any, points are wrong? You don’t have to worship a person to realize that something that they wrote was valuable and useful and, perhaps even true.
I am a part of a group of Christian Objectivists. We hold that the basic principles of Objectivism, apart from the atheistm of mainstream Objectivists, are right, especially in the context of a secular, civil government.
Objectivism says that there is an objective reality. Things realy exist and they are what they are. Doesn’t the Bible teach that? Isn’t the opposite–subjectivism and/or relativism–one of the main problems in American society today?
Objectivism says that people are conscious, which means that they are aware of other things. In other words, reality doesn’t exist in my mind only–it is something “out there.” Doesn’t the Bible teach that?
Objectivism says that entities, particularly people, act according to their nature. In other words, people do what they do because they are people. (One point being that a system, such as Communism, that does not take human natue into account, they are doomed to fail.) Doesn’t the Bible teach that very strongly? It has a lot to say about human nature and the condition of the human being.
I won’t go on, but my point is that there are aspects of Objectivism that are completly compatible with the Bible, because they are true, just as the teachings of the Bible are true. All truth is God’s truth, even if presented by an atheist.
Rand went wrong when it came to faith. She defined it as a subjective feeling. I can’t speak for anyone else, but my faith is not a subjective feeling. It is based on evidence–exactly what Objectivism would suggest that we do: accept the reality that we perceive and understand through reason.
Rand is misunderstood when it comes to altruism. She never, ever rejected the notion of voluntary charity. She said over and over again that the poor and needy should be taken care of by people who voluntarily had an interest in taking care of them through private institutions. What she was against was forced altruism (when she talked about altruism, that’s what she meant). She recognized, as the Bible teaches, that something cannot be charity (in the true sense of the word; that is, love) if somebody is forcing you to do it.
She is also misunderstood in regard to egoism. Look, if a person does not believe in God, then it leaves them two choices–either they (their person) belong to other people or they belong to themselves. I think we Christians would agree that a person first belongs to himself, though ultimately to God, and that we must choose to die to ourselves and give ourselves to God. We certainly do not think that people belong to the state or to society or to some other person.
Report comment to moderator
SO, not having read any of Ayn Rand’s writings, the only thing I can contribute to this thread (that’s only somewhat, but very, very remotely related) is that I really, really wanted to name a baby girl Dagny, once upon a time. I didn’t first hear this name in relation to Atlas Shrugged (learning only later that this was a main character’s name in this book); I’m not even sure where I heard it. But I like it from the moment I heard it (and it has the same meaning — the dawn of the day — as my middle name). Alas, our last two were boys. Maybe I’ll have a cat named Dagny someday.
Back to your regularly scheduled debate.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, but a large number of those Founders were steeped in Scripture.
What we forget is that our Constitution is a framework and it is vulnerable to the whims of man. Even those “faithless” Founders understood that without Christian ethics and values behind it, this experiment will fail.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle A: Christian Objectivists? Had never heard they are formally organized. Rand, who condemned the mixing of her philsophies as surely as the biblical prophets did, is surely rolling over in her grave! That’s as rational as being a Christian Marxist simply because Karl predicted America’s concentration of wealth and income. No, everything Rand taught wasn’t wrong. Just the most important things she taught. The best description of her ideas was they are a glass of freshly squeezed juice laced with a lethal dose of strychnine. Discerning Truth is not comparable to playing horseshoes.
Report comment to moderator
Did anyone actually go the AVN’s website? It seems the assumption is that just because they pointed out some problems with Republican leaders following someone who no on on this site should be defending, folks jumped to the conclusion they are liberal. I didn’t find anything defending abortion or gay marriage, and I saw a lot more citation of Scripture there than on this string. But regardless, Chuck Colsen said the same as this ad did and actually went farther. Democrats have been doing some awful things, but I am a Christian first, and it has been disturbing to read the rhetorical gymnastics going on in this piece and comments to try to justify pursuit of wealth and defend a political Party instead of Christ here. It’s also disappointing that the author chose to only mention the short Rand Paul and Limbaugh praise to show AVN was creating stawmen…seems a lot of people are accusing the other side of exactly what we are doing. What about Sen. Johnson’s statement that Rand’s novel was his foundation book or even more damning, Paul Ryan’s praise of “Rand’s morality” and other statements about the need for more thinkers like her in Washington? As Christians, we must put faithfulness to Christ above worldly possession and power. I see a lot of folks trying to mold Christ around worldly idols on this string, and it is disappointing to see. If conservative Christians are going to shine Christ’s light on the world and be that beacon on the Hill, we must follow Him first and be willing to call out our political allies when they part ways (as is clearly happening with those praising and defending Rand) from his path.
Report comment to moderator
I’m sorry to do 2 posts in a row but I’m just dumbfounded to see fellow believers and conservative Christians trying to defend Ayn Rand and those who support her. She said she was out to destory Judeo Christian morality and scorned the church. How can people be arguing something good can come from that? No follower of Christ can praise or partake of the fruits of that tree. That’s like saying that abortion doctors do a lot of good stuff because they do blood work and let the mother know if her iron is low before performing an abortion! There is nothing good that comes from Rand and those who follow her are not following Christ.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t think that there is a formal group. However, there are discussion groups and blogs devoted to Christian Objectivism. At least a couple of people have tried to write a formulation of it, or a manifesto, if you will. So what if Rand would not have liked people mixing her philosophy with something else? She isn’t a god, let alone God. She doesn’t own the principles that she advocated. If other people reach the same conclusions, they are entitled to forge a variant of her philosophy.
There are Christian Marxists, as you know. I think that they are wrong, but not because they “mix” Christianity and Marxism. They are wrong because Marxism is wrong on its own merits (actually demerits). (Not everything Marx wrote was wrong, but some of the underlying premises certainly were.) By the way, I don’t oppose Marxism because of Marx. I oppose it because the ideas are wrong.
Same with Objectivism. We should not accept or reject it based on Rand’s life or personality. Either it is true or false.
Report comment to moderator
So if I need to fix a motorcycle must I damn the motorcycle repair manual if the author is an atheist? Should I damn books by Milton Friedman because he was Jewish? Ridiculous!
Alisa Zinovyevna Rosenbaum (Ayn Rand) was born a Russian Jew. Her father owned a pharmacy that was confiscated by the Bolsheviks under Lenin during the Russian Revolution in 1917. They fled to Crimea and she eventually made her way to America. She loved and embraced freedom and capitalism.
This experience and her love of liberty gave her remarkable insight into the insidious destructive nature of socialism which was making its way into America secretly. Americans were blind to it, but she predicted where our government was taking us 50 years in advance. She offered tremendous insight into the Obama presidency long after she was dead.
But no, we must damn any economic and political insights which are true because they came from her lips because she was an atheist Russian Jew who spoke against Christianity. What does that have to do with economics and politics? Unbelievable!
Report comment to moderator
If I have accurately captured the essence of Rand’s philosophy* in #26, then can someone tell us what is wrong with that on its own merit without dragging Rand out of the grave and indicting her personally?
*Note: Objectivism is nothing new. It is existentialism with a purpose. The only thing unique that Rand may have added to it is to “be all you can be”. True existentialism offers to hope or purpose.
Report comment to moderator
* True existentialism offers NO hope or purpose.
Report comment to moderator
Rand was an author who said her book and her philosophy were intended to undermine Judeo Christian morality. She called Jesus’ teachings evil. It’s not merely that she didn’t believe in God. It’s that she taught the antithesis of Christianity and claimed openly she was doing so. If all people agree with is that communism was wrong, then there are a ton of other much more articulate, thoughtful, and moral people to cite as a source. So why chose Rand, especially when she says that her goal is to undermine Christianity?
Report comment to moderator
I became a Christian Hedonist after buying my first copy of Desiring God in the Liberty University bookstore in 1987. What prompted the sale? In leafing through the book, I noted the words “Ayn Rand,” which caught my attention. I had been a Rand fan for a few years, and actually would have left Christianity for Objectivism — if not for C. S. Lewis. Anyway, did you know that John Piper actually wrote Rand a lengthy letter shortly before her death? In it, he explained his view that truly enlightened self-interest is to love God more than anything, and your neighbor as yourself. I doubt she bought his reasoning. But I’ve been a happy Christian Hedonist for years now. “Christian Objectivist”? I’d like to hear more!
Report comment to moderator
I a not defending Ayn Rand–not by a long shot. I am surprised that anyone feels a need to attack her, though. Agree or disagree, but all of us should recognize that argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy.
My goodness! If Ayn Rand were the one who had formulated the theory of gravity, I think some of you would dispute it just because it came from her.
Report comment to moderator
Peter “ran the numbers” early in the day, and just objectively knew he would have enough. “Reason” would be the payoff.
“Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.” (Mt 17:27)
Later, he, no doubt, subjectively rejoiced.
Report comment to moderator
Have any of you seen the movie Atlas Shrugged? It played practically nowhere and isn’t available on DVD either. It was slammed by nearly all critics. Most Christians here would pile on too I suspect.
I loved the book Atlas Shrugged except for the nonsensical speech of John Galt. Fountainhead was a bit strange at times, but both books really provoked me to think. Since then I have become a libertarian and John Stossel has become my favorite reporter. I finally understand Ron Paul and have come around to his positions.
If you look at the reviews of the movie on Amazon, some are quite interesting. For example, one person wrote “A wonderful movie that will always be criticized. This movie is being continuously slammed by critics and for obvious reasons. It’s not because the movie is bad, quite the contrary, but because the movie has a strong message of being both “politically & economically conservative” and Hollywood producers despise that message.”
Yup. And some conservative Christians too apparently. People really don’t like freedom in its rawest form. Weird!
Report comment to moderator
I read Atlas Shrugged this year and enjoyed it (except for the infamous 70-page John Galt speech. Ugh). The way I see it, Rand’s distopia–where she shows the corruption of human nature–is dead on. Part 2, chapter 10 contains one of the best descriptions I’ve seen of why socialism on a basic level won’t work—showing how the “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” will make previously nice people turn to cutthroats.
Unfortunately, her solutions–the Utopia she presents–is clearly make-believe. As I read it I was quite disappointed because the keen eye to human nature devolved into fantasy, with people acting unnaturally just to prove her agenda. When a bunch of unapologetically selfish people live together, all selfishly pursuing their own desires, will they really all live harmoniously together? Visit a daycare and you’ll see that’s silliness.
I agree with Rand on what’s wrong with socialism/economic sentimentalism/over-regulation, etc., and yet reject her view on how to fix it. I wouldn’t call myself a “fan” without specifying that.
http://pumpkinankles.com/?p=444
Report comment to moderator
Witherow, What Utopia did Rand ever present? You can’t mean the society of all who “shrugged” in Colorado. That was temporary until the world asked the producers back. Liberty isn’t about creating Utopia. Liberty is the freedom to make things worse. However, most people who are free try to ascend rather than descend.
Report comment to moderator
From “The Ayn Rand lexicon” at aynrand.org:
That view is antithetical to Scripture, and it is not simply (as you recast it) the “Compassionate Conservative” dictum that “something cannot be charity (in the true sense of the word; that is, love) if somebody is forcing you to do it.”
Being a Christian Objectivist strikes me as much like being a Christian Marxist or a Christian Nietzschean or a Christian Buddhist. If the philosophy you espouse diametrically contradicts Scripture in fundamental ways, sticking “Christian” in front of it does not change that.
Report comment to moderator
Ayn Rand again:
If that is the essence of Objectivist ethics (and that’s Ayn Rand saying that it is), I submit that it is entirely incompatible with — in fact diametrically opposed to — Christianity.
And here’s an interesting pickle for the Tea Party conservatives who’ve taken up (or fessed up to) a love affair with Ayn Rand:
In my own opinion, the problem is less that conservatives admire and support Rand (which I regard as an honest mistake), and more than their politics are so closely aligned with Rand’s belligerent pride and disregard for the poor, both of which are entirely foreign to Scripture.
Report comment to moderator
MYTOOSENSE, it was reasonable for Peter to do what Jesus said and to believe that He knew what He was talking about. It would certainly be reasonable to rejoice after the miracle occurred. If you don’t believe that miracles are objectively real and true, then we have a problem. They are then just a matter of our imagination or some kind of hallucination–just as Rand and other atheists would say.
JJF, here is something that the Bible says about giving:
“Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” 2 Corinthians 9:7
If you do not agree with Rand, then do you believe that people should be forced to give? Do you believe that the government should have the power to force you to give? That was Rand’s main point–that no other person or group should force you to support something you might not want to support. Her family’s experience in the Soviet Union was that people were required to “help each other” and it led to nearly universal poverty. Of course, the ones who were making everyone else share were a little more “equal” than the others.
Report comment to moderator
The more I read these comments, the more I realize virtually everyone accepts those few teachings of Rand, fictional though her writing was, that agree with the Judeo-Christian ethic and reject her nonsense, such as counting on Wall Street to behave itself purely out of “self-interest” when all of us who work there know Citicorp mortgage dealers knew they would tank but that they’d make enought to on the one deal to retire on a yacht. Neither she, nor Adam Smith for that matter, anticipated such and economy. She discussed railroads and Smith bakeries. So why not simply live by the Judeo-Christian ethic? The Parable of the Talents surely admonishes us to live productively. Moses surely warned the Hebrews that government would take their best crops and such (Dt 17:14-17). Pilate warned politicians would be pragmatic rather than know Truth when staring it in the face. Solomon said to never put our faith in any human leader as they cannot save us, be they conservative or progressive. There are only two reasons I’ve ever received for Christians to syncretize Rand: 1) She detested government, while Judeo-Christianity honors David and Solomon. So even Ralph Reed has written in the WSJ that conservative ends can be advanced through libertarian means. But as I wrote in my chapter on Rand, why not promote conservative ends with conservative means? As Moses knew from living in the palace, government largely regulates behavior and transfers wealth; so if we behave and live in charity, in the fullest sense of the word, with our neighbors, we can save a lot of overhead. 2) Christianity has not spoken to capitalism. Its ministers are like missionaries to China who can’t speak Chinese. They are therefore irrelevant from Monday to Saturday. Rand was right about that. Still, Satan can quote scripture for his (or her)own purposes. Why go there when she, Greenspan, Nathaniel Branden and so on discovered the very hard way it was a dead end in real life? Objectivists should surely read more than simply her fiction to test its truth. Not to do so, as she always insisted her disciples not do, simply makes it the cult it was widely described to be.
Report comment to moderator
Mr. Moore, I agree that Rand’s inner circle became a cult, and I am aware that the cult exists today. It is one reason that some objectivists have tried to distance themselves from Rand and the mainstream objectivist movement. Have you heard of SOLO–Sense of Life Objectivism?
I have read Rand’s nonfiction works, thank you very much. I have watched some of her addresses and interviews, too.
I don’t think that Rand believed that Wall Street would behave itself (or not behave itself, for that matter). I don’t think that you really understand the core principles of objectivism, especially if you think that Alan Greenspan or Michael Miliken are its best representatives. Hardly! Rank-and-file objectivists and rank-and-file libertarians don’t seem to me to care that much what Wall Street or what Main Street does. They believe in living their lives, as individuals, as they see fit–without interference from other entities. They believe in not interefering in the business or the lives of others. That’s what it is really about.
Report comment to moderator
Well, if she really understood Christianity, she would have understood greed and wouldn’t have been so stupid as to think they (the bankers) would police themselves. She didn’t understand that the heart of man is evil from youth up.
(And I suspect there are tea partiers who haven’t read the Bible.)
Report comment to moderator
I have never read Rand’s novels due to their sexual content, so I cannot comment on her economics. I do challenge the arguement that morality and economics are mutually exclusive. Proverbs 4-9 goes into great detail contrasting the freedom of wisdom (morality) with the slavery of sexual immorality. Prov. 5:10, in a warning to avoid sexual temptations, it says, “Lest strangers be filled with thy wealth; and thy labours be in the house of a stranger. How can Rand’s economic theories help preserve basic freedoms, if her moral ideas enslave?
Report comment to moderator
Okay. Let’s establish once and for all that Rand was an atheist. We should not be surprised then to find that she advocated one’s own best interest as the highest good. We should not be surprised that she balked at morality as Christians understand it. That doesn’t mean that everything she ever said or wrote was incorrect.
It seems that there are three choices in regard to who people exist for:
1. God
2. themselves
3. other people
If you leave God out of the picture, as Rand did, then which one is better–2 or 3? Which one is more biblical? Are other people supposed to control you, regard your life as belonging to them, or dictate your every action? I say, like Rand, no.
If, as Christians, we say 1, that’s fine. It is to be expected of us. But how does that work in the context of a civil, secular society? How does it work in the sphere of government? Are we to force everyone to attend church? To force them to confess Christ? To force them to pay money to support the church or to help the needy?
I do not believe that is right. I believe that we can understand that each person is subject ultimately to God and secondarily to his or her own conscience and will. Our civil authorities should recognize the sovereignty and individual freedom of the person.
No, Rand would not agree with me in regard to my religious beliefs, which is why I think of myself as an objectivist and not as a Randian.
As for people pursuing happiness, isn’t that why we yield to God–because we believe that it will result in our ultimate happiness. We don’t do it because He forces us to, after all, but because He loves us and promises to bless us with perfect and eternal life. Sure, we owe it to Him, but I do not think that is why most people are motivated to be a part of His family.
—–
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for all these comments, very interesting.
I read all Rand’s fiction as a teenager, the year before I became a Christian. I still think about some of her more pithy remarks 40 years later. For example, her comment, “You can tell a lot about how a man views himself by the woman he chooses to sleep with.” Amazing how apt that can be.
Even as a kid, though, I didn’t understand her logic. it didn’t make sense to me to spend all that time, effort and money to build a beautiful skyscraper and then blow it up as Roark did in The Fountainhead.
Because I don’t have a political mind and don’t think abstractly very well, I have to say I never thought Ayn Rand had much to say to Christians. I put her thinly veiled philosophy behind me when I accepted the Lord and other than items like the above, seldom have thought about her since. My personal soul did not benefit from the themes in her novels.
Carry on.
Report comment to moderator
John Piper on Rand:
http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/taste-see-articles/iatlas-shruggedi-fifty-years-later
http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/the-ethics-of-ayn-rand
Report comment to moderator
Actually, if you really have read any of Rand and/or Objectivism, you would understand that statism (fascism as we have in America today with large corps. and the state cooperating on their agenda) and religion/mysticism/spiritualism/magician-in-the-sky (whatever you wish to name it)are the two major culprits. Both seek to “control” the individuals and abrogate his/her natural liberties.
Report comment to moderator
Michelle, “Even as a kid, though, I didn’t understand her logic. it didn’t make sense to me to spend all that time, effort and money to build a beautiful skyscraper and then blow it up as Roark did in The Fountainhead.”
Contrary to what many people here are saying about Rand, that she was all about greed and unrestrained capitalism, her books actually say quite the opposite.
Most of her characters preferred to live in poverty to pursue their art and fulfill their dreams. Rourk loved to build even if no one paid him. He hired a poverty stricken sculptor. They built things that were hated by their profession.
What he blew up was not a skyscraper but a low-rent apartment complex which allowed the poor to live in beautiful surroundings inexpensively. He asked for no money and no recognition, only that it be done to his specifications. He had a contract stating all this. But politicians and architects ruined the project and so he destroyed it. That’s not something I would recommend, but Rand was making a point which was the exact opposite of greed.
All of Rand’s protagonists in Atlas Shrugged gave up fame and fortune to pursue the industries which gave them joy and fulfillment. The antagonists were politicians and Wall Street firms, i.e. the world, which stood for the status quo and greedily stole from others. She was not pro-world. She was pro-individual. How can anyone equate any of this with greedy Wall Street bankers?
Report comment to moderator
Why would anyone give all that much credence to someone who grew up in Russia, approved of Kerensky (though as a teenager, what could she possibly have understood), and then comes here with those horrid experiences — NOT the American experience — and disses Christianity, something she knew absolutely nothing about having been raised in a non-observant Jewish family? She had the freedom to speak here, among other freedoms, and she failed to investigate the history of her new country.
Had she known American history, she would have known about the economic collapse of the 1890s and the disgusting greed that caused those bankers to foreclose left and right on the people then as they are doing now. People walked away from their homes. If we learned from our own history, and I submit that we still have not, we would outlaw the ways to implement that greed. We don’t. And it has nothing to do with Christianity. It has to do with the fact that our politicians are just as greedy as our bankers. That just proves Jesus correct that the heart of man is evil from youth up.
Report comment to moderator
“MYTOOSENSE, it was reasonable for Peter to do what Jesus said..”
————-
Kyle,
If it was reasonable for Peter to do what Jesus said, would others, during that time (better at reason than Peter), do likewise?
If not, why not?
Would not the initial reaction be, “UNreasonable” (i.e. “This is crazy.”)
BUT, as you mentioned “believed”, Peter would reckon, “I believe, therefore I’m heading for the sea”.
—
Of course, the miracle was FACT.
How could anyone doubt Biblical revelation?
Report comment to moderator
Interesting thread.
Of all the commenters, I most appreciated those of Susan H. Xion, yours were pretty good also.
As for me, I am a Christian [no need for additional adjective]!
Report comment to moderator
The topic here is that because Rand opposed Christianity therefore Christians should oppose her.
I would prefer that Christians be informed about atheistic philosophies, not terrified by them. RC Sproul gave an excellent series of lectures on Western philosophies called The Consequences of Ideas and The Christian Worldview. How did he learn about them? Reading and understanding is better than pointing the crooked finger of damnation at anything unchristian.
Rand celebrated starving artists and ruined entrepreneurs, not the rich and powerful. Her philosophy actually came from Friedrich Nietzsche and his ubermensch, which she called the perfect man. I have read many of the Western atheist philosophers and really enjoy them. It is amusing to see that they aren’t proposing anything new.
Most of these writings are about Christianity, though not actual Christianity but a false straw man to poke fun of. RTaylorTitle7 gave a perfect example of this in #60. Some Christians here also set up a straw man about Rand. How many times must we say she wasn’t on the side of greedy bankers?
Solomon spoke of the mundane below the sun and of the spiritual dimension above the sun. Augustine contrasted the city of God and the city of man. Nietzsche and Rand wrote of these very same things, only they sided with the secular dimension under the sun. No one describes the vanity of the mundane better than an existentialist. Hemingway followed this philosophy to its logical conclusion and blew his brains out. To him it was all meaningless. Those who reject purpose in life, live lives without purpose.
Nietzsche and Rand rejected idealism and the spiritual dimension in life (or so they thought) and then went on to propose their own idealism which embraces so many things that they heartily rejected. And they thought they were so smart. God has made foolish the philosophy of this world. By rejecting the spiritual dimension they became vain in their imaginations. Vanity of vanity, all is vanity under the sun.
But Nietzsche and Rand weren’t wrong about everything. They accidentally got some things right. They said to ignore the world and it’s religious and political systems and be all you can be. Transcend the nihilism of this world and embrace your potential, ignoring those who would hold you back. I actually took this journey, rejecting everything I was ever taught, and ended up finding truth in Christianity.
They both considered Christianity an artificial construct of political systems and people in power whose desire is to force you to serve them. That isn’t entirely incorrect. It is certainly true of socialism and other political systems and it has been true of the church. What they got wrong is that none of this is related to what Christ actually said.
Report comment to moderator
From the Business Roundtable’s Guidelines for Corporate governance in 1990:
Balancing the shareholder’s expectations of maximum return against other priorities is one of the fundamental problems confronting corporate management. The shareholder must receive a good return but the legitimate concerns of other constituencies (customers, employees, communities, suppliers and society at large) also must have the appropriate attention . [Leading managers] believe that by giving enlightened consideration to balancing the legitimate claims of all its constituents, a corporation will best serve the interest of its shareholders
But, according to an article in MIT/Slaon magazine:
Then, in September 1997, the roundtable’s report on corporate governance announced an about-face: The paramount duty of management and of boards of directors is to the corporation’s stockholders. Period. The customer may be “king,” and the employee may be the corporation’s “greatest asset” (at least in the rhetoric), but the shareholder is the bottom line. The report reads, “The notion that the board must somehow balance the interests of stockholders against the interests of other stakeholders fundamentally misconstrues the role of directors.
Utter and complete self-interest.
Yep, your Jesus would have loved it.
Report comment to moderator
#66 Arcadia. What does any of that have to do with Jesus or Rand?
Jesus was poorer than anyone. Rand opposed greedy corporations and politicians. All of Rand’s protagonist characters gave up everything in order to do the things they enjoy. Their wealth was confiscated by greedy corporations and politicians. She is the champion of starving artists and starving entrepreneurs who pursue their own ideas, not wealth.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you, Xion.
Report comment to moderator
Xion
a little side track here but suicide is not the logical conclusion of existentialism. Read The Myth of Sisyphus by Camus and if that intrigues you read the Rebel.
Here’s the wikipedia summary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_Sisyphus
There’s two ways of interpreting Camus — rebellion and self creation (similar to Nietzsche) or reaching back to Voltaire’s Candide — we must tend our garden, ie meaning is found within the life we live now.
Report comment to moderator
The Leftist-inspired ‘debate’ over Rand is so contrived that it is amusing.
It demonstrates the mind-boggling hypocrisy and slander that so-called ‘leftist theologians’ (a contradiction in terms if there ever was one) employ, in the complete absence of any real or substantive arguments. It is probably to be expected; such people inhabit a dismal moral and spiritual and intellectual sewer, and have no discernible connection with concepts of truth or integrity in thought.
Rand’s philosophy concerning how people are to treat other people – and her God-concept (or lack thereof) – are absolutely and obviously antithetical to Christianity.
But her political and cultural assessment of Statism is spot-on. As, incidentally, was Orwell’s entirely complementary framework of thought (i.e. in 1984); Orwell was also an atheist, or at best, an agnostic. Or Yevgeny Zamyatin in his novel We; Zamyatin was a Soviet dissident who was also an atheist.
What Leftists (Statists) hate about Christianity is that Christ puts the individual and his/her relationship with God front-and-center in terms of establishing both ‘worth’ and responsibility and morality; the State is nothing in this sense – it does not give or take away anything of value, it is a non-player, a non-issue, a depraved manifestation of a fallen world. To the Christian, God is supreme and God is only personal (never corporate) and the individual ultimately answers only to God. God owns us, the State does not.
The Statist (Leftists) hate this concept with a blind and consuming passion. They worship the State over God, and the individual is, in their view, merely creature of the State, not a creature of God.
Where Rand goes wrong completely (of course) is in her complete turn away from God as ‘owning’ us – Rand elevates the individual above God – and in fact attempts to eliminate God and replace Him with individual human Ego, just as the Statists (leftists) attempt to eliminate God and replace Him with the corporate human Ego (the State).
The Left attempts (dishonestly and malevolently as always) to attack the true Christian (who worships not the State, the great forbidden sin in the mind of a Leftist) as being somehow linked to Rand’s flawed view. They attempt this because the true Christian believes that the individual is the ‘container’ into which God pours Himself, and that it is the individual relationship with God that claims our allegiance, and not our relationship with the State.
In summary:
Rand wrongly elevated the individual over God and State.
The Left wrongly elevates the State over the individual and God.
Further both Rand and the Left scorn the idea of a personal God.
The Christian rightly elevates God over both the individual and the State, and realizes that God is both infinite – and personal.
Report comment to moderator
Rand’s characters are usually people despised by the world. And so they stand on their own and stick to their principles even though the whole world is against them. No one did this more than Jesus.
As much as Rand hated Christianity, Jesus exemplified her perfect man. He was Nietzsche’s ubermensch. They argued against Christianity by proposing that everyone reject this world and become a perfect man like Christ. Funny, isn’t it?
Report comment to moderator
52
According to Rand herself, Ayn Rand’s main point was not simply that “no other person or group should force you” to give, but that nothing, and especially not a sense of moral duty, should force you to give. Again, Ayn Rand: “I do not consider [charity] a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty.”
That is clearly, plainly, on its face anti-Scriptural. I hope we have no disagreement about that.
So the next question is whether your appropriation of Rand — your “Christian Objectivism” — is in accordance with Scripture. You quote 2 Corinthians 9:7 in support of your revised Randism: “No other person or group should force you to support something you might not want to support.” You seem to take the passage not as an exhortation to cheerful giving, but as an excuse not to give if you don’t feel like it. That is taking one phrase of one verse badly out of context.
And that one verse is hardly all the Bible has to say about giving. And where the Bible talks about rules for a government, it clearly both exhorts and commands charity.
Those are commands given to a nation that, we cannot doubt (human nature being what it is), often had unwilling landowners who were compelled by law to leave behind grapes and wheat that they would rather have taken.
So is it wrong for a government to compel others to give? Clearly not, since God commanded the only government He ever directly established to do exactly that.
Report comment to moderator
Jesus is Rand’s perfect hero and Nietzsche’s superman? A quote from the wikipedia article on Objectivism, from Atlas Shrugged: “My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.”
Jesus said: “I seek not mine own will. but the will of the Father which hath sent me.” (John 5:30) “For I have not spoken of myself; but the the Father which sent me, He gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak” (John 12:49) Not exactly the self-made, self-sufficent individual that Rand celebrates.
Report comment to moderator
Well, obviously, I read it wrong as a teenager . . .
Here’s the other problem, Xion. You may be a successful engineer, but the older I get, the more I see I’m Mrs. Reardon and not Dagny Taggart. I also was very conscious all those years I stayed home and raised children, that I was considered a parasite in Rand’s world.
But that’s just me . . . who is now off to babysit the adorable grandchildren (another parasitic job–you notice no one in her books had children), so all the kids can go sailing with my husband (ooh, that sounds altruistic–another example of why I’m the scum of the earth).
As I said, what I did pick up from objectivism was unhealthy for me.
Report comment to moderator
One other observation–I notice the guys are more enthusiastic than any of the women, but is that because I’m the only woman commenting who read Ayn Rand’s books?
Report comment to moderator
The woman had little joy in her life.
Report comment to moderator
#73 Phos “Jesus is Rand’s perfect hero and Nietzsche’s superman? A quote from the wikipedia article on Objectivism, from Atlas Shrugged: “My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.”
I realize that Rand and Nietzsche would disagree with my assessment. They would gasp at the thought that Jesus was their perfect man or ubermensch. They had very narrow views constrained to the mundane, secular material world. (Note: mundus and seculum in Latin both mean this world.)
However, if you consider the big picture, was not Jesus the perfect man? Did he not transcend the mundane secular human existence. Was he not all he could be? Did he not fulfill his ultimate purpose?
Jesus did have sorrow in this life, but was not his joy ultimately realized? Being God, did he not fulfill the ultimate divine will? As the omnipotent creator of all things, did he not achieve his own rational self interest? And is not man created in His image having similar aspirations?
No one has taken up my challenge to explain what is wrong with a philosophy which states “Be all you can be”. That is Americanism in a nutshell. Christianity applies that philosophy to eternity.
Find ultimate fulfillment in being all God would have you to be in the light of eternity. Achievement in this life is not all there is. Achieve your ultimate destiny. In doing so you become the perfect man. You become a true ubermensch even though the world may despise you.
Atheistic philosophy is childish and constrained to the stuff of this world. God calls us to be strong men and women with intellects exercised to understand the depth and height of the things of God.
Rand and Neitzsche by rejecting God explained the divine aspiration in all of us. Artists and entrepreneurs are called ‘inspired’ even if they reject the meaning of that term.
RC Sproul did an excellent lecture series on the Holy Spirit where he talked about the inspiration of artists like Thelonious Monk and NFL linemen of all things. When someone explains the true aspirations of the human heart they are describing our likeness with God’s divine nature whether they want to or not.
Report comment to moderator
#74 Michelle “You may be a successful engineer, but the older I get, the more I see I’m Mrs. Reardon and not Dagny Taggart. I also was very conscious all those years I stayed home and raised children, that I was considered a parasite in Rand’s world.”
Gasp! Oh no! Say it isn’t so. Mrs. Reardon was a parasite because she detested her husband and did everything in her power to destroy him. She used his wealth in order to maintain her circle of vain friends all of whom detested genius and individualism and self made men. Obviously I disagree and oppose the whole affair with Dagny, but I at least understand it.
There is one scene where Mrs. Reardon threw a party for vapid intellectuals and political figures and Hank just stared out of the window at a field thinking of how productive he could make that field while the chattering ingrates spewed nonsense all around him.
I feel that way sometimes. Today is Father’s Day and I know I am appreciated, but my family has no clue what I actually do. I don’t think Rand would despise my family, but it is a thought to consider just the same. It is simply what is. It is reality.
Rand was a vile person in her own life, having an affair herself which devastated her adoring and devoted husband. I watched the documentary on her life and it made me physically ill she was so abhorrent to such a loving man. But I try to consider an author’s ideas apart from their personal lives. I can appreciate the artistic ability of actors while disagreeing with their political philosophy.
Report comment to moderator
Michelle,
I also read Rand’s books in my early adult years. I first came across one of her books in the college library (at a fundamentalist Baptist college, by the way), and found myself both attracted to and repelled by her advocacy of self-interest as the highest good. It seemed at once both utterly opposed to Christian values, and yet irrefutable in that every one of us acts in a way that we think is good for us in some way.
If I give up something to help someone else, I am doing it because I consider it better both for myself and the other person. Better for the other person because that person needs my help, better for me because I need to be the kind of person who helps others. If I follow God it is because I think it is good for me to do so. That doesn’t mean I’m not also motivated by compassion, by gratitude, and by duty, but I can’t deny that I think it will ultimately be the best for me to do what I think is good and right to do.
A few years later, a friend (and businessman) got me interested in Rand’s novels, and I read everything I could find in the local library. I never knew quite what to make of everything she wrote, but I was fascinated by it. I became interested in business (and ultimately gott an MBA) in part because of reading Rand.
But I haven’t read anything by her in a couple decades, since then.
Report comment to moderator
Rand was not in favor of greed. If you get a chance the best book of hers to read is Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, in which she (and others, including a young Alan Greenspan) discuss the way that the government supported and sponsored big business, drowning out competition, so that you ended up with monopolies and the robber barons. She would have said to you, NJLawyer, that uncaring bankers can only prosper if they are propped up by the government, which they currently are.
JJF, do you think that giving to charity is a moral duty for non-Chrisitians? Rand was not a Christian, as we have amply pointed out here. As a Christian, I do not see how I can say that giving to others is a moral duty–except for Christians.
I see now that you bring up Old Testament commands to Israel. Are you saying that the United States is a theocracy like Israel? Are you saying that Christians should force non-Christians (or even other Christians, for that matter) to support the poor? And are you saying that it should be administered by a secular government?
JJF, the passage I quoted said that Christians should not give by compulsion. Obviously it is clear that God wants us to give, and we should obey Him. However, no other person should compel us to give, That’s how I read the passage.
The more I have thought about it, the more I have seen that God wants us to act voluntarily. He doesn’t want people having power over other people–that was one issue he raised with the Pharisees and Saducees. (I am not discounting authority within the church, but church leaders are supposed to practice servant-leadership not authoritarianism.)
God even wants us to act voluntarily toward Him. He tells us what to do, but He does not force us.
Report comment to moderator
I did not say exactly what I meant at the conclusion of the first paragraph above. Rand would have argued that bankers have no obligation to be caring. What she would have said, though, is that in a free market, people would be able to choose among many banks and among many bankers for the deal that suited them best. Only if government is in collusion with the banks can they mmistreat people with impunity.
Report comment to moderator
#80 “As a Christian, I do not see how I can say that giving to others is a moral duty–except for Christians.”
Kyle,
This has nothing to do with Ayn Rand, but your statement above seems a bit strange to me. I can see saying that you do not expect non-Christians to act the same as Christians. But to say that it is not a moral duty… Are there certain kinds of behavior that are a moral duty for non-Christians but not others? Do you think a non-Christian has a moral duty to obey any of the Ten Commandments? If a non-Christian fails to give to others, is that not a moral failing?
Report comment to moderator
Al Franken has said it best in his usual satirical fashion. Just switch the name from “Supply-side Jesus” to “Ayn Rand Jesus” and the message gets across.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK7gI5lMB7M
Report comment to moderator
Kyle: What she would have said, though, is that in a free market, people would be able to choose among many banks and among many bankers for the deal that suited them best. Only if government is in collusion with the banks can they mmistreat people with impunity.
What’s to keep the banks from making agreements amongst themselves to ensure that none of them offer the public any deals so good as to hurt the overall profitability of any of them?
In a free (unregulated) market, there’s nothing to prevent price-fixing and other customer-hostile actions… but if you offer something customers need, they really have little choice but to accept the onerous terms.
Report comment to moderator
#83 CelticWoman. Um, yeah. Al Frankin the comedian is such a fountain of wisdom. He attacks the straw man that Christians are all about greed and war, yet he ignores Obama’s kickbacks to greedy unions and starting new wars in secret to support European oil interests.
Liberals support the working man and unions as long as they are subservient to politicians and big government. A union man who pays union dues and gets special perks from Obama’s administration in the form of kickbacks and healthcare wavers is what modern liberalism is all about.
However, if one of these laborers ever had a good idea and struck out on his own, apart from the government sponsored collective, then liberals would despise him. If he got wealthy he would become evil and government would do everything in its power to extract whatever it could from his carcass.
This is modern liberalism at its finest, detesting anyone who opposes the collective and champions the individual. This is how government becomes the problem, not the solution.
We have progressives like Barney Frank, aka Wesley Mouch, the sleaziest politicians to ever slither onto dry land, who cause economic devastation, and yet are lauded as the saviors of the nation. This is the kind of political stench Rand opposed, but which liberals love.
Liberals who champion statism and economic cronyism will naturally detest Rand’s ideas in support of liberty. Liberals only love starving artists when they are starving. Rand loved them whether their income was little or much.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline, the only moral duty that I can see a non-Christian has is not to harm others without provocation. That would obviously include not murdering and not stealing. However, it is not a moral duty because the Ten Commandments say so. (They were given first to Israel and then to the Church.) It is a moral duty because nature and reason indicate that it is so. Otherwise, you have to impose one view of morality on other people by force. That is precisely what Rand objected to.
No, it is not a moral failing for a non-Christian to refrain from giving to others. If a non-Christian person feels a sense of empathy or compassion and wants to help some other person or many other people, then we usually find that admirable. However, by what principle can you say that one person is obligated to help another?
One thing that persuaded me to adopt objectivism myself is that I began to realize how much we Christians act in our own self interest. We give, in part because it gives us joy to give and because God promises to reward those who give. Sure, we do it because God tells us to, but God has chosen to promise something in return. As Rand pointed out, a relationship is always a negotiation. Granted, God did not need to negotiate. He did not need to offer us anything, but He chose to, and that is one of the reasons that we love Him and follow Him. “We love Him because He first loved us.”
Report comment to moderator
Conan, wouldn’t somebody break that agreement in order to make more money themselves? Wouldn’t somebody who was not part of that original agreement open their own bank and undercut all the others?
I have seen it with local gas stations. When one of them drops the price a penny, the one down the street is sure to follow, and sometimes they drop theirs two pennies. It doesn’t happen all the time, but I imagine with less regulation it would be extremely common.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle A:
You say that a non-Christian has no moral obligations other than not to hurt others. If that were true, then a non-Christian could live a sinless life, simply by not hurting others. After all (by your logic), he’s not a Christian, so he’s not held to those standards.
And I did not say that the United States should be a theocracy like ancient Israel. I use the example of ancient Israel to point out that it is not wrong for a government to compel others to give. After all, God commanded the only government He ever directly established to do exactly that.
I disagree with you fundamentally. Your position contradicts both the Bible and church history.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle: Conan, wouldn’t somebody break that agreement in order to make more money themselves? Wouldn’t somebody who was not part of that original agreement open their own bank and undercut all the others?
You vastly underestimate the power of money.
I have seen it with local gas stations. When one of them drops the price a penny, the one down the street is sure to follow, and sometimes they drop theirs two pennies. It doesn’t happen all the time, but I imagine with less regulation it would be extremely common.
Right … a penny here or there. But that’s about as far as it goes.
What would happen, do you think, if an independent gas station decided to sell gas for 10 cents a gallon less, in an unregulated market? The big players could simply drop their price by 20 cents and absorb the loss just long enough to put the upstart out of business. And then up goes the price again.
Report comment to moderator
Michelle — your observations about the predominance of men in an Ayn Rand discussion is spot on and confirms my supposition that the attraction to her “philosophy” is its appeal to self-interest and individualism. As I stated earlier, Objectivism appealed to me in a superfical level in my teens because it justified any self interested behaviour and what teenage boy doesn’t like that. In the movie Dirty Dancing, a boy holds up the book “Fountainhead” when attempting to justify using a girl for a one night stand.
Kyle — the gasoline business is the best of oligopoly collusion pricing.
Xion — Jesus as the Overman?? Despite some current “gentle” interpretations of Nietzsche no interpretation of Nietzsche comes close to that equation. Nietzsche embraced man as he was, any semblance of transcendentalism was a betrayal of our true nature.
Report comment to moderator
HRW, You must have missed #77. Please reread. Thanks.
Report comment to moderator
JJF, well said. God’s law condemns those who do not believe, whatever sin is the sin of choice. “Acceptable” cultural sins of fornication or gossip or greed are nevertheless still sins; they do not “become” sins only after a person knows Christ. (That would in fact mean that coming to Christ puts us under the law more.)
Report comment to moderator
This is a great and much, much needed discussion at this point in history as conservative Christianity has conveniently ignored Rand the past three decades. Unfortunately, it also affirms the sociologists are largely correct that we are indeed a post-modern society with a cafeteria-style morality. As George Barna has said, “syncretism is America’s favorite religion.” I’m afraid that is largely due to the political pragmatism of the social and economic conservatives co-habitating Reagan’s “big tent.” As C.S. Lewis said: “Man is becoming as narrowly ‘practical’ as the irrational animals…Closely connected with this unhuman Practicality is an indifference to, and contempt of, dogma. The popular point of view is unconsciously syncretistic: it is widely believed that ‘all religions really mean the same thing.’”
Those Christians who prefer to avoid the syncretistic adjectives of objectivist, progressive, conservative or libertarian are simply dismissed as fundamentalists, or worse by objectivist standards, un-sophisticated. But Rand clearly taught before the financialization of America. Any philosophy that is not relevant to Wall Street is not Truth. Having served on a Christian board with Ken Lay of Enron, who thought like Christ on Sunday but Rand from Monday to Saturday, I better understand why Christ literally thanked God for hiding Truth from the learned. Surely American society is sufficiently confused we Christians should know better.
Report comment to moderator
92: Precisely, Cheryl, as I Timothy 1:8-10 puts it:
‘But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;’
Report comment to moderator
#93 Gary Moore, Syncretism is the blending together of religious beliefs. Objectivism, progressivism, conservatism and libertarianism are not religious beliefs per se’. They are economic philosophies. Jesus had very little to say about the Roman government and Rand did not teach “Any philosophy that is not relevant to Wall Street is not Truth”.
If you read Fountainhead then you would know that Wall Street and big corporations were the antagonists of her main character Howard Rourk, a starving architect who worked busting rocks in a quarry. If you read Atlas Shrugged you would know that most of her entrepreneurs chose to give up everything they had to greedy well connected corporations in order to perform the work they loved.
Once again, many of you keep repeating the misinformation that Rand was all about greed. How is a starving architect who just wants to design practical buildings whether he is paid or not anything remotely like being greedy?
Rational self interest is not greed. Please read the short story called “I Pencil” by Leonard Read. It shows how thousands of people are involved in making a pencil, but no one would call all of the people who are doing their jobs in order to feed their families greedy. They are all pursuing their own interests, but produce something that is mutually beneficial. It is a win-win situation without needing top down central planning from the government.
Report comment to moderator
Interesting conversation. Sorry I missed yesterday. 2 quick points. To Xion’s statement about Jesus being Rand’s superman, this was what Rand had to say (again, taking the time to read about Am Values Network was helpful b/c they have a good memo with no commentary but lots of quotes): “According to the Christian mythology, [Christ] died on the cross not for his own sins but for the sins of the non-ideal people. In other words, a man of perfect virtue was sacrificed for men who are vicious and who are expected or supposed to accept that sacrifice. If I were a Christian, nothing could make me more indignant than that: the notion of sacrificing the ideal to the non-ideal, or virtue to vice. And it is in the name of that symbol that men are asked to sacrifice themselves for their inferiors. That is precisely how the symbolism is used. That is torture.” Saying Christ is the perfect example of a human and Savior up until he died for us is completely missing the point of Christ. That is what Judas did. And while Xion does say he recognizes Rand and others likely wouldn’t reach the same conclusion he does, I just don’t see how one can claim to be supporting a thinker and writer when she reaches the absolute opposite conclusions we do about Christ and then say that she was right. Is the argument that she didn’t understand her own arguments? That her statement that the goal of her teaching was to undermine Christianity and nothing was more opposed to her thoughts than Christ just confusion on her part?
Report comment to moderator
Those of you who have read the book Atlas Shrugged know that it is not a religious book. Aside from John Galt’s ridiculous nonsensical diatribe, religion isn’t mentioned much at all.
Atlas Shrugged is about a society which so demonizes and punishes productive people that it causes economic stagnation. Does that not describe Obama’s war on prosperity, propping unions and job killing agencies like the EPA and placing healthcare under the auspices of the IRS? Bush and many other administrations including the Fed harm the economy with bailouts and ridiculous public policy.
Aren’t these things precisely what is happening today? This is not about religion folks. This is about socialism.
Report comment to moderator
I also wanted to comment on the string about whether Rand’s hatred of charity was a problem for Christians b/c we can’t hold non-Christians accountable to Christian standards, I think that argument became so theoretical as to have lost its tie to relevancy. I’d agree that to a certain degree we can’t blame non-Christians for not following the teachings of Christ. But we do, and whether viewed from a political or theological perspective, it’s clear that the ad in question was also targeted at Christians.
So while it may not be entirely fair to criticize Rand for not following Christ’s teachings, Christians who defend her do not have the same excuse. WE can’t say her ideas on charity and her morality were good b/c WE do claim to follow Christ. So arguing that she shouldn’t be held to Christian standards b/c she rejected Christ and said his teachings were the root of most of the evil in modern society may work as a generic thought experiement, but it’s hardly a justification for Christians to be praising her, making impressionable interns read her books, or saying she reached compelling conclusions.
Report comment to moderator
Have any of you read about Public Choice Theory? This better explains Rand’s views on why government is the problem.
Report comment to moderator
Xion,
We had a group and political philosophy that rose up most strongly and vocally to fight socialism as communism was on the rise. It was called fascism and Nazism. And lots of Americans and even Christians joined in, especially early on, because of their fear of the communist threat. Heck, one of Osama bin Laden’s biggest critiques was about the materialsm, sexualization, and moral laxness of the West. My guess (or hope) is that most Christians would probably also agree with the basic root of that critique. But just b/c there may be some truth or agreement in a critique does not make a person worthy of praise or in anyway indicate that their solutions have any validity at all.
And let’s be honest, of all the problems with our country and this current administration, don’t tyou think Jesus might ebe a little more concerned about the largest gap between rich and poor in a century and record prison population and women and children on the streets than a misguided attempt to try to give everyone healthcare? And are CEO’s getting these massive bonuses for firing thousands of people and selling their company off in bits and pieces really the most productive people in society?
Our country is a mess right now for sure! But Rand has not diagnosed the problem, and sure definitely hasn’t provided the solution…and as bad I think Obama’s been, I’m even more scared of some of these current political leaders in Republican circles who are saying the solutions are found in Rand.
Report comment to moderator
“the Love of money is the root of all evil.”
Does anyone know the context of this verse? It is usually quoted apart from the surrounding passages. It doesn’t stand alone; it’s not a proverb.
Paul was warning us about loving something so much that it creates problems. When someone lives to get rich, then his love of money will create frictions in his family, reduce his health, skew his priorities, and lessen his service to the Lord. This is the context in which the love of money (the desire to be rich) is the root of all evils – in that person’s life.
One then could then say that the love of sex is the root of all evils, or the love of online gaming, etc., – not the root of all the world’s evil, but the evils that person will endure as a result of his misplaced love.
Report comment to moderator
Steven, if that was the only such quote, I’d agree with you. And it is true that money can be used for good things (Jesus and the disciples used it). But there is the rich man, eye of needle quote and Sermon on the mount about storing up treasures in earthly places and hundreds of others in OT and NT. But perhaps the best warning is the “lead me not into temptation.” That is why wealth is the root of so much evil…it’s hard to be surrounded by it and not have it tempt and skew your priorities. Not to say it’s impossible, but I think most would agree that more Christians have been tripped up by wealth than saved by it over the centuries!
Report comment to moderator
Susan H,
The PHRASE “the Love of money is the root of all evil” occurs in only one part of Scripture, and that’s the context I was referring to. Be careful of comparing this verse with unlike passages, or you’ll infer that Scripture contradicts itself, which I’m sure you didn’t mean.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry for the delayed responses:
@Xion 49. Yes, I was referring to the book’s settlement in Colorado as a Utopia. I see your point about it being only temporary and therefore not a Utopia in the strict sense–though I think it does reflect what kind of society Rand sees as a perfect world, and the kind of world the producers will re-create once reintegrating into society.
@Michelle 75. I am a woman who has read the book. And I agree with your post (#74) about how Objectivism devalues women who aren’t devoted to career alone.
Report comment to moderator
Steven,
I don’t understand how comparing a phrase in scripture saying money is a root cause of evil with the countless other passages in Scripture that warn against the temptations and dangers of wealth can lead on to the conclusion that Scripture contradicts itself. To the contrary, I’d think it demonstrates the opposite by supporting the notion that Scripture is consistent in this warning and pretty clear that money and worldly posessions can trip Christians up and not be goals to which we aspire. I apologize if I misunderstood your point, so could you please explain a little more? Thank you.
Report comment to moderator
Susan, you might be confusing yourself by comparing misquotes and a negatively biased approach against God-given rights as opposed to those supposedly given by the State.
??Who exactly are those Republican leaders so fond of Rand??
I’m playing catch-up here on a very long thread, so forgive me if I’ve conflated some ideas.
Frankly, I no longer give any of my precious time to Ayn Rand except in crossword puzzles. Life is too short. But sometimes I like to understand what makes other thinkers rehash such ideas.
Report comment to moderator
Xion: No syncretism as Objectivism isn’t a religion and Atlas Shrugged “is not a religious book”? It ends with John Galt making the symbol of the dollar sign, a symbol that is to replace the Cross, Star of David and hammer and sickle of Communism. It was a symbol she wore as we wear crosses. It was a six-foot replica at the head of Rand’s casket. And yes, it is the symbol that Wall Street pursues rather than sacrifically serving others. For that reason Rand attacked George Gilder in her last public speech. Having spoken with George, I know he also understands no one in his right mind would hire Howard Roarke to freely and completely design the house he will live in with no imput from the client. Read a little Bob Lutz and you’ll realize the Roarke’s of Detroit are precisely the reason for the dominance of the customer centered Toyota’s of the world.
Most Randists still appparently believe Rand’s fascist sentiment that, “The worst of all crimes is the acceptance of the opinions of others.” She even admired a psychopathic murder as he had freed himself of all social norms.
Had you bothered to read Ayn Rand: Goddess of the Market by Jennifer Burns, perhaps the most objective discussion of Rand that I’ve read, or anything written by Bill Buckley or Whittake Chambers, you’d know why Burns ends it by writing, “Rand intended her books to be a sort of scripture,” which is why Burns used teh word “Goddess” in the subtitle. On page 232 Burns detailed: “The idea that Objectivism was a weird pseudo-religion had wide currency in the mass media. Some of this sprang from the obvious passion Rand inspired in her readers. Religious metaphors were often used to describe her: she was a ‘prophetess’ or ’she-messiah,’ and her audience was a ‘congregation’ or ‘disciples.’ Much of the religious imagery, however, stemmed from eye witness reports of NBI classes [usually conducted by Nathaniel Branden, her St. Peter turned Judas]…Visitors to NBI lectures were alarmed by the exalted place Rand held at NBI and the conformity of the students Nathan taught.”
The idea that there is no syncretism happening is refuted by Solomon and Christ suggesting we test all truths while Rand taught her disciples to never debate her ideas. When I was to debate Leonard Peikoff, her St. Paul, over lunch before some Christian leaders in Orange County, he announced upon arrival that he was not there to debate anything. He simply stated Rand’s opinions about everyting under the sun and beyond and discussed nothing else, as some are obviously doing in this “discussion.”
In reality, Rand stressed rationality as long as disciples thought what she wanted them to think. When they determined reality with anything but her thinking, as Branden did when falling in love with Patricia as he felt the need to also think with his heart, Rand excommunicated them. Ironically, in that, she was closer to the biblical prophets than most of our Christian leaders today. If there was a true prophet among conservative Christian leaders today, they should suggest that if you don’t want to believe what Christ taught, or the Holy Spirit teaches, don’t call yourself Christian. At least have the integrity to make up your own name for your own philosophy as Rand did.
Why worry about that? Having a political science degree and some knowledge of theology,I understand slippery slopes. It’s dangerous to pretend you are Christian when you aren’t. That other fascist Adolph Hitler began by pretending he, and the “Christian” leaders of his time, some of whom thought Hitler was a prophet from God, were simply up-dating Christianity with Nietzche’s ideas. Like Rand, Hitler also thought the perfect man was Nietzsche’s strong and willful Ubermensch, rather than a loving carpenter humbly born in a stable. In order to create God, or Reality, in his own image, Hitler even called Jesus an Aryan and used the term “Lords of the earth.” They were simply John Galt, a “producer” rather than a “mooch” of a wandering evangel who never owned a factory or railroad, which, by the way, Rand nor her husband ever did. The carpenter lived what he taught. So will America: whether Christianity or some syncretized moral stew concocted to feed those other than Hitler who are paranoid about Communism, which was always destined to rot quickly as it too was not Truth preserved by salt.
Report comment to moderator
Susan H,
We were at loggerheads for a moment there because your intent was not clear to me when I first read it. You wrote, “But there is the rich man, eye of needle quote and Sermon on the mount about storing up treasures in earthly places and hundreds of others in OT and NT. But perhaps the best warning is the ‘lead me not into temptation.’ ”
Now I see that you meant that the “love of money” reference was a warning among other warnings (against giving one’s heart to riches), and I did not pick up on that meaning. I simply meant to explain what the phrase meant in the original spot in Scripture, not to explain what the other passages meant. I imagined the verse may have appeared to others the same way as “to be or not to be, that is the question” appears to us who have not read the Shakespearean book, and who therefore have no idea what it means.
I just intended to clarify the context of the verse lest people think it means that the love of money is the root of the whole world’s ills, which was not Paul’s original intent. He was speaking of the individual’s pursuit after riches and the verse is only the middle of the entire chapter (1 Tim. 6) which speaks on riches.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks Steve. And gotta say, it is nice to be able to just have a calm conversation instead of what sometimes develops in conversations. As with this case, I expect people often agree or at least aren’t that far apart more than we think!
Report comment to moderator
The “Republican leaders so fond of Rand” are most significantly, Paul Ryan, author of the Repulbican budget. The ad the article is about finishes with an excerpt from one of several longer videos he posted on his facebook page praising Rand. So definitely not out of context or a slip up to a question because he took the initiative to do it himself and posted what he wanted. It’s all about how great she was at explaining the morality of things, which is pretty scary and obviously the point of the Am Values video, when you hear what she said her morality was based on and headed toward! Sen. Johnson says Rand’s book was his political foundation. Rand Paul has praised her on multiple occasions and quotes from her in hearings. Other Congressmen require their interns to read her books.
I took the time to go to Am Values to check them out after reading the article. They have a long list of quotes, some of which are stronger and more absolute in their praise than others. But they all point to a trend, and there are enough who praise Rand without caveat (and Ryan has to be one of the most powerful Republicans in DC right now and one even Gingrich had to apologize to for questioning on basically this exact point) that it raises flags.
Report comment to moderator
#104 Witherow “@Xion 49. Yes, I was referring to the book’s settlement in Colorado as a Utopia. I see your point about it being only temporary and therefore not a Utopia in the strict sense–though I think it does reflect what kind of society Rand sees as a perfect world, and the kind of world the producers will re-create once reintegrating into society.”
The community in Colorado was not an attempt to create Utopia. It was more like a hideout for the productive to escape society until the government came to its senses. That is where the book ‘Atlas Shrugged’ got its title. Atlas (i.e. the productive) Shrugged, meaning they went on strike. Their advancements would have been a great help to society, but the world despised and rejected them.
They were not trying to create an ideal society, they just wanted to be free to find fulfillment in the work of their hands without the government ruining everything they did or building weapons of mass destruction or creating economic chaos.
Report comment to moderator
#100 Susan H “And let’s be honest, of all the problems with our country and this current administration, don’t tyou think Jesus might ebe a little more concerned about the largest gap between rich and poor in a century and record prison population and women and children on the streets than a misguided attempt to try to give everyone healthcare? And are CEO’s getting these massive bonuses for firing thousands of people and selling their company off in bits and pieces really the most productive people in society?”
I am having a hard time following your point. Are you saying that Jesus’ mission was to create wealth equity in Rome and in America? He was God manifest in the flesh. Did he alleviate poverty anywhere? He gave a few people lunch and paid his taxes, but his mission was not about fixing Roman social programs. He is King of King and Lord of Lords and his Kingdom will never end. His Kingdom is not of this world.
Report comment to moderator
#107 Gary Moore. It sounds like you are saying that because Rand spoke against Christianity that we should reject everything she stood for. Should we reject liberty? Should we reject capitalism?
You call Rand a fascist. Fascism is a form of socialism. Fascism is the Italian word meaning collectivism. These things are the antithesis of what Rand stood for. So I don’t know what more can be said about that.
You are mixing religion and economics and philosophy and Rand’s personal life together into a big hodgepodge of hate against her. You and I probably agree on a lot and we can disagree with much of what Rand said, but let us analyze her ideas apart from ad hominem personal attacks.
Not one person has accepted my challenge in #26 to tell me what is wrong with that fundamental theme of her books. Please leave Rand out of it and just consider the ideas. While you are at it please explain how Solomon got it all wrong too. See his quote in #111.
Report comment to moderator
#197 Gary Moore >i>”For that reason Rand attacked George Gilder in her last public speech. Having spoken with George, I know he also understands no one in his right mind would hire Howard Roarke to freely and completely design the house he will live in with no imput from the client.”
You do realize that the Fountainhead was fiction right? It used hyperbole, exaggeration for effect. I found Howard Roark? infuriating, but no one would ever act that way. He was way over the top, but the story caused me to think. Should I go around torching the works of every author if I can’t directly apply it to the real world?
How many TV programs and Hollywood movies aren’t exaggerated? Are there any? They can’t even do documentaries accurately. Should we go on a rampage against Hollywood because what they produce isn’t real?
Report comment to moderator
JJF, a person’s rejection of God and God’s gift of salvation is the ultimate sin and the one that actually keeps that person out of God’s kingdom. Even if a person could be good enough never to harm another person, which is impossible, he or she would still not be right with God without being reconciled to God trhough Christ.
Understand where I am coming from. The Law was first given to Israel. Were non-Israelites supposed to say, “Oh, that Law that was given by a God whom we don’t believe in to a nation that we are not part of–that’s what we should follow”?
Christ’s commands to help the poor and needy were given to His followers. Are non-Christians supposed to say, “Those commands that were given by a dead Rabbi that we do not believe in or follow are what we should do”?
In other words, if it is true that non-Christians are supposed to obey the teachings of the Bible, you have to explain to me how they would voluntarily come to that decision or how you would justify our forcing them to do so. As I understand it, they are expected first to acknowledge that the Creator God exists and they are expected to do what is right fromt their own nature and their own reason (Romans 1 and 2). I’m not sure that the includes doing charity, but maybe it does.
JJF, your example of Israel only shows one thing: that it was not wrong for that naton to compel people to give to the poor. It says nothing about what the United States is authorized by God to do. Whether you admit it or not, saying that the U. S. government has the power to force people to be charitable is saying that it is a theocracy.
Cheryl D., fornication, gossip, and greed are harmful to others. People who are not Christians should realize that they are wrong.
I oversimplified what I wanted to say. When we were talking about “moral duty” I was thinking more of how it plays out in secular society. Even if it is a moral duty for non-believing people to give to others, which I doubt, it would be between them and God. I do not believe that it is the duty of Christians or other theists to force people to give to others by using the power of the secular government–or even, as in times past, the power of the church.
It certainly isn’t right to tell the secular world–explicitly or implicitly–that by being do-gooders they will be “good” and will merit God’s favor and go to heaven when they die. I know that you don’t believe such a thing, but it would be easy for non-Christians to get that impression, and I think that many of them have that impression, which I am afraid that we unwittingly help to foster.
Most people have a sense of empathy toward other people, and they are motivated to help other people. Because of that, I suppose that you could say that it is immoral not to do so. Perhaps God holds people accountable for not doing so, even if they do not believe in Him. However, I do not see that there is some kind of explicit command given to people who are not Christians to help those in need the same way that there is such a command for Christians.
Report comment to moderator
Pitting “Ayn Rand vs. Jesus Christ” is like asking which is better politics or religion?
Report comment to moderator
#116
Xion–exactly right.
I was going to say that people had better stop identifying themselves as conservatives and/or Republicans, because that would be syncretism.
Report comment to moderator
Xion: But matters of wealth and money are moral issues. Rather than playing the reductionist game with Susan (that is, you’re focusing narrowly on Jesus’ mission on Earth rather than the whole of Christian ethics) why don’t you explain to us how “the largest gap between rich and poor in a century and record prison population and women and children on the streets” is acceptable to you. Or how “CEO’s getting these massive bonuses for firing thousands of people and selling their company off in bits and pieces” really are “the most productive people in society?”
She raises good questions; you dodge them.
Report comment to moderator
“why don’t you explain to us how “the largest gap between rich and poor in a century and record prison population and women and children on the streets” is acceptable to you.”
Disagreeing with how to fix it, does not mean one finds it acceptable.
Stop being irrational.
“Or how “CEO’s getting these massive bonuses for firing thousands of people and selling their company off in bits and pieces” really are “the most productive people in society?””
Any business owner has the right to sell his business. Also, sometimes one must sell in order to remain viable…Chevy did that recently when they sold/closed Saturn/Hummer.
Those that bought the facilities/names can use it.
It’s not always they sell out and the new owner closes shop entirely.
Report comment to moderator
Ayn Rand was not as wise as others thought she was. She was just a good salesman who perked up people’s ears by giving them not only permission but applause to be selfish, self-involved, and self-centered. And she got lots of their money for doing it. The irony is humorous.
Report comment to moderator
^ Case closed.
Report comment to moderator
Xion: First you guys argue we shouldn’t bring Rand and her unreal life into the conversation. Then when I point out the unreal nature of one of her best known heros, you argue he’s Hollywood fiction so we shouldn’t pay attention to him. Exactly what about Rand should we pay attention to? You really want to build your relationship with reality and those you know or do business with on a fictional, exaggerated, Hollywood character created by a drug addict and sociopath? Get real! God loves you far too much to let you go thru life in such a deluded state.
Report comment to moderator
Xion again: As to #26, there’s are two simple but beneficial principals that guided the true geniuses of history to true greatness long before Rand created herself: 1) “This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased” for each day lived to its max and 2) “Well done good and faithful servant” for a life lived to its max.
Rand thought a psychopathic murder had reached his potential as he cast off all social norms. She like him did not know good from evil. Mike Milken reached his money-making potential as an investment banker but went to jail because of Rand’s ideas. Alan Greenspan reached more than his potential, in my opinion, but apologized to Congress for “the flaw” in his, or really Rand’s, thinking that created the credit crunch and Great Recession. By the way, I happen to know that Paul Volcker is a devout Christian who almost single-handedly saved this country from economic disaster by not giving Wall Street what it wanted by spiking the punch. He very much disagreed with the “easy money” philosophy of Greenspan that created our Internet stock and housing bubbles and subsequent messes. So much for the purpose of life being to produce as much money as possible while not understanding good from evil. Show me one place in the Bible where it says easy money is a virtue.
If you ever read anything but Rand, you might know I ended my chapter about her by praying for her soul. As Eric Metaxas says in his new book Bonhoeffer, you and most of her defenders are confusing pandering to Rand’s insanity with loving her and her discples enough to tell them the Truth.
Report comment to moderator
#118 Conan “…why don’t you explain to us how “the largest gap between rich and poor in a century and record prison population and women and children on the streets” is acceptable to you.”
Who says it is? But Christianity isn’t about solving poverty through government social policy. Jesus specifically did not and said we cannot either.
Poverty is not evil, unless we mean being without food or shelter, which is a problem. Such poverty is essentially non-existent in America.
Liberalism is materialistic. It is all about stuff. Jesus said a man’s life consists not in the abundance of his possessions. Christianity is specifically non-materialistic. Christians are to give and be busy doing good works, but that is more about the heart of the Christian, not about solving poverty.
Jesus taught separation of church and state. His kingdom was not about this world. Rand despised this idea for sure, but her focus was on politics. What does Christianity (as Jesus and his disciples taught) have to do with politics?
Report comment to moderator
Xion: Who says it is? But Christianity isn’t about solving poverty through government social policy. Jesus specifically did not and said we cannot either.
So all I good Christian can do is say ‘tut tut, too bad, but nothing I can do?”
How conveeeeeenient!
Report comment to moderator
“So all I good Christian can do is say ‘tut tut, too bad, but nothing I can do?”
About what? There is nothing evil about one person driving a nicer car than another. Is there a problem here?
The problem with poverty in America has very little to do with money. It has to do with wrong thinking. Christians can help with that.
As for money, we can teach you how to earn some on your own. You will be much better off learning to stand on your own than if we hand you a check.
Liberals with their good intentions always make things worse. In their effort to cure poverty they cause poverty and reward laziness and eventually create a society with no goods and must shoot people in the back trying to escape. A little tough love would have worked better.
Report comment to moderator
#122 Gary Moore “Xion: First you guys argue we shouldn’t bring Rand and her unreal life into the conversation. Then when I point out the unreal nature of one of her best known heros, you argue he’s Hollywood fiction so we shouldn’t pay attention to him. Exactly what about Rand should we pay attention to?”
Have you ever read fiction? Did you learn anything? Will you not read George Orwell because you don’t want to hire a pig or because he was a filthy atheist? Will you not read Hemingway because he was a suicidal existentialist? Do you even own a TV which is all fiction?
“You really want to build your relationship with reality and those you know or do business with on a fictional, exaggerated, Hollywood character created by a drug addict and sociopath? Get real! God loves you far too much to let you go thru life in such a deluded state.”
So now I am deluded? Many movies are created by drug addicted sociopaths. Do you fully research the lives of every director before taking your wife out on a date?
You (and I) are just as much a filthy rotten sinners as Rand was. Me too. But you feel the need to go around pointing the bony finger of condemnation at anyone who is beneath you. I prefer to consider their ideas which according to you in #123 are “beneficial principals that guided the true geniuses of history to true greatness.”
Report comment to moderator
Xion: I grew up a fundamentalist Southern Baptist but became a Lutheran primarily due to my enormous need for grace. But Bonhoeffer, a Lutheran minister turned would-be assasin of Hitler, also taught me the meaning of “cheap grace.” He learned it from Germany’s Christian leaders who thought they could syncretize Hitler, another disciple of Nietzche like Rand. So yes, I do love you, and my fellow Americans, enough to tell you that you are messing with dynamite by attempting to mix such differing philosophies. History and the biblical prophets tell us about nations that have tried.
This very week’s Newsweek contains an article where Robert Gates, the defense secretary, says: “Congress is all over the place. The Republicans are a perfect example. I mean, you’ve got the budget hawks and then you’ve got the defense hawks in the same party. And so I think there is no concensus on a role in the world.”
Rome had the same problem before it fell. Romans were “conservative” in not wanting to pay taxes but, like Rand and today’s conservatives, thought government should protect their personal property. When the Romans couldn’t pay the legions who had run out of Israels to despoil, they debased their currency and eventually went out of business. It was largely due to believing they could think two diametrically opposed ideas. Now try to find a tea party favorite, like Sara Palin who has taken defense off the table, who wants to cut back on defense, homeland security, FDIC, etc. Bad ideas, which are usually from mixed-up confused minds, have bad consequences.
Report comment to moderator
#128 Gary Moore ” I grew up a fundamentalist Southern Baptist but became a Lutheran primarily due to my enormous need for grace. But Bonhoeffer, a Lutheran minister turned would-be assasin of Hitler, also taught me the meaning of “cheap grace.””
I was a deacon and teacher in a Fundamentalist Baptist church for over 20 years and like you also left due to finally researching and understanding the deep meaning of grace. Grace is the essence of Christianity.
While I love Bonhoeffer’s works, his definition of “cheap grace” is unfortunately wrong. He deemed cheap grace as laziness, i.e. not doing enough for God and set out to demonstrate costly grace by giving his life for attempting to assassinate Hitler. I admire him for this, but God’s grace is not about us or what we do. God’s grace is kindness to the undeserving. If you try to earn it, then it isn’t grace anymore.
“So yes, I do love you, and my fellow Americans, enough to tell you that you are messing with dynamite by attempting to mix such differing philosophies. History and the biblical prophets tell us about nations that have tried.”
You keep repeating this theme of syncretism, but I don’t see how I am mixing anything. The Bible is true and is over here, while Rand is mostly false and is over there. Even the greatest theologians aren’t right all the time and atheists aren’t wrong all the time. Rand was right about socialism. She grew up with it. She experienced it first hand. She was an authority on that subject.
I don’t see the need for Christians to run off and hide in a bubble. I experienced first hand many fundamentalists who did just that and they would wilt like flowers when confronted by the world. Christians should be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. Well, how can we be wise as serpents if we never learn anything except the echo chamber of our own small circles?
Ideas can be evaluated on merit. RC Sproul taught Western Civilization and touched on all these ideas. How would he able to explain them if he never read them?
I love apologetics and will study to show myself approved so that I can answer any man. But I bristle at your accusation that I am delusional and trying to mix philosophies as thought I don’t know the difference. I have spent a lifetime engaged in the marketplace of ideas and know exactly what the differences are.
I enjoyed reading Rand like I enjoyed reading Orwell. It taught me something about bad government, namely the American government 50 years before its time. It also taught me that many of Rand’s critics are ignorant of what she said. I don’t see how an advocate for starving artists becomes a proponent of corporate greed unless those businessmen also didn’t understand what she said.
Report comment to moderator
Xion: If you read Burn’s book, you’ll read the statement: “Nietzche’s elistism fortified her own.” Exactly where is the starving artist the hero of a Rand book? Are you talking about Howard Roarke, a rapist and bomber who cares nothing about the wants of his clients? That’s little above the murderer she admired.
You asked me repeatedly “what’s wrong with fiction?” Nothing. I happen to think Two and a Half Men is entertaining, if crude, fiction. But the fictional Charlie is not as crude as Rand and Branden having an affair after informing their spouses. The drug addicted Rand eventually drove her husband Frank into a drunken withdrawal from the world. And I certainly don’t want my son to imitate Charlie Sheen in forming his worldview.
Moreover, I don’t want the guys deciding America’s budget for all Americans, but particularly those on transfer payments, to base their budgeting on Charlie’s narcisistic worldview where Charlie makes it clear that he cares less if his mother and rest of the world goes to hell as long as he’s ok.
Yeah, I know libertarians hate transfer payments. But if Moses was truly government rather than simply prophetin what we’ve always thought was a theocracy, all those commandments about rounding the corners of the fields and leaving the second picking of grapes for the poor were not exactly suggestions. They were “the law” of the land and Jesus, being Jewish, promised that not the smallest law would be done away with for all eternity. In short, there simply is no biblical case, or traditionally Christian case, for the Randist and/or libertarian worldview that every individual is an island. And Rand did not witness socialism, particularly the Christian socialism of Acts where “no man said what was his was his own.” She witnessed statist Communism where everything belongs to the state.
Surely you don’t believe we have that with federal taxes now taking 15% of GDP, the lowest since WWII. I reitterate, if you hate our democratically elected government that much, you have definitely syncretized Paul, who told those living in catacombs to honor and respect even Nero, with Rand, another utopianist who also didn’t know how to count the blessings of living in the freest, most prosperous nation the world has ever known.
Report comment to moderator
…Paul, who told those living in catacombs to honor and respect even Nero…
No he didn’t.
Report comment to moderator
#131: What is Romans 13:1-7 about then?
It was written to Roman Christians in the middle part of the first century AD — that is, those living in catacombs under Nero — and tells them to be subject to ruling authorities; that those authorities are instituted by God; and that people should pay their taxes and obey the rulers.
“So the person who resists such authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will incur judgment.”
If that’s not telling those living in catacombs to honor and respect even Nero, then what the heck is it?
Report comment to moderator
Xion:
As I truly do love you as a brother in Christ but hate those ideas that weaken your Christianity, I wanted to get back to you on how you perceive grace. I actually became a Lutheran several years after my first book took me into the evangelical world. I had been an Episcopalian for years before that after I got married. I realized that so many of my new evangelical friends emphasized evangelism while virtually ignoring, even despising, any form of working for neighbor in any secular manner. One very close friend even startled me when he said he didn’t want to do good works as it might interfere with the grace on which he depended for salvation. He was eventually asked to leave the securities industry and became a minister. That is a profound misreading of Luther and Bonhoeffer, one I believe is tied to Rand and libertarians weakening the social ethics of Christ, or Second Great Commandment. Perhaps you’ve noticed that while most evangelicals love the Great Commission, which Christ didn’t really emphasize, they rarely mention the Second Great Commandment about loving neighbor as self.
Since an ordained friend who chaired the poly sci department at a Christian college told me I was a natural Evangelical Lutheran, I’ve read a stack of books on Luther, Erasmus, Bonhoeffer and so on. I’ve even taught a few classes at Luther Seminary in St. Paul. In each seminar, I’ve quoted Luther’s famous statement: “Good works do not make a good man [as even Mike Milken bought sporting tickets for kids when accused of his crimes]; but a good man must do good works.” None of my friends at Luther who are theologians and professors have corrected me.
And while I didn’t have it with me last night, I wanted to get this passage from the foreword to the new biography Bonhoeffer just right for you: “Germany lost hold of the brilliant balance of the gospel that Luther so persistently expounded–’We are saved by faith alone, but not by faith which is alone.’ That is, we are saved, not by anything we do, but by grace. Yet if we have truly understood and believed the gospel, it will change what we do and how we live.” The Catholics and Lutherans recently had a confab in which they discussed their differences over faith and works. They essentially decided the Episcopalians have it correct when its liturgy says works are evidence of a true and lively faith.
What does that mean for our polity? As the Lutheran church is decentralized, like the Baptists, they have many state-based social agencies, which I believe is quite Christian. But Forbes has estimated that if they are added together, they are twice as large as Catholic social servcies, the largest charity in America. I would therefore go so far as to say, in affirmation of Bob Sieple at World Vision, that if more evangelicals had a more balanced understanding of grace and works, we could cut government substantially. But as Edmund Burke taught us, in a democracy we get the government we deserve. If we focus on Word alone, we’ll need lots of government to fill the moral vacuum and provide bread. In a democracy, government only does for people what they cannot, or will not, do for themselves.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, I only have a minute, so briefly:
The govt Paul describes in that passage bears no resemblamnce to Nero or the Roman govt, which is roundly denounced everywhere else in Scripture (and certainly not held in honor). Paul is telling Christians that civil govt remains a legitimate institution, to be modeled on Paul’s standard given in that passage (and elsewhere in scripture), the aim of Christian influence on govt., among other things. But no way is Paul countermanding other scriptures chiding Roman rule.
Report comment to moderator
#103 Gary Moore “Xion: If you read Burn’s book, you’ll read the statement: “Nietzche’s elistism fortified her own.”
Yeah, I know. I explained Rand’s sourcing of Nietzsche quite clearly in #65.
“Exactly where is the starving artist the hero of a Rand book? Are you talking about Howard Roarke, a rapist and bomber who cares nothing about the wants of his clients? That’s little above the murderer she admired.”
Nearly all of her characters were willing to sacrifice all of their wealth. They found fulfillment in being productive, not in the wealth.
“You asked me repeatedly “what’s wrong with fiction?” Nothing. I happen to think Two and a Half Men is entertaining, if crude, fiction.”
So your hate of fictional characters and the actors or authors behind them is selective. You huddle around the glowing tube of vanity watching the antics of a psychotic self-absorbed drug addict with nodding approval while trashing a treatise on economic theory.
I don’t care what you watch, but at least try to be consistent. We live in a fallen world. We interact with fallen people. I don’t see how one set of drug induced sex fiend entertainers are better than another group of sinners.
I am able to consider ideas on their own merit. You acknowledged in #123 that the theme of Rand’s books as I outlined i #26 were “beneficial principals that guided the true geniuses of history to true greatness”. Well, that’s all I am talking about. I don’t care who originates an idea. If is a good one, then we can discuss it.
Report comment to moderator
#133 Gary Moore “As I truly do love you as a brother in Christ but hate those ideas that weaken your Christianity…”
You call me delusional and claim that ideas have weakened my Christianity. How do you know that? Which ones? You mean the “beneficial principals that guided the true geniuses of history to true greatness”? Those ideas?
“I realized that so many of my new evangelical friends emphasized evangelism while virtually ignoring, even despising, any form of working for neighbor in any secular manner. One very close friend even startled me when he said he didn’t want to do good works as it might interfere with the grace on which he depended for salvation.”
Well, that’s ridiculous. I believe nothing of the kind. Fundamentalists I’ve known espouse what Paul railed against in Gal 3:3, “Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now made perfect by the flesh (i.e. the outward works of the law)?”
Those friends of mine believed that a person is saved by grace, but sanctified by works. All of Catholicism believes this way and I would venture to say much of Christendom too. Bonhoeffer fell for the same error.
Christians are certainly to be busy with good works, but the point is that no one earns any extra favor with God. His favor is granted apart from works. Christianity is not a merit system. We do good works not to earn points, but out of love for God. We love him because he first loved us.
“That is, we are saved, not by anything we do, but by grace. Yet if we have truly understood and believed the gospel, it will change what we do and how we live.”
I agree with that. However I think where we may differ is on the motive. If good works are required, then sanctification is no longer by grace. A Christian will do good works, but not out of fear of falling out of God’s graces, but out of love.
Report comment to moderator
Mac: The govt Paul describes in that passage bears no resemblamnce to Nero or the Roman govt, which is roundly denounced everywhere else in Scripture (and certainly not held in honor). Paul is telling Christians that civil govt remains a legitimate institution, to be modeled on Paul’s standard given in that passage (and elsewhere in scripture), the aim of Christian influence on govt., among other things. But no way is Paul countermanding other scriptures chiding Roman rule.
I’m sorry, can you point out where Paul adds an exception for certain kinds of government? I’m not seeing it. Or this is just another case where the Bible doesn’t really mean what it clearly says?
Come on, Mac. Paul was writing TO Christians IN Rome UNDER Nero and telling them to respect and obey ALL government authorities. There are no exceptions here.
I can see why it’s a problematic passage that many Christians might want to pass over, but it is there and it says what it says. Just because the Roman government was not behaving in a godly way doesn’t mean it wasn’t instituted by God for a purpose — Christians often argue that God can use evil men for His own purposes.
I gather that’s the import of Paul’s words here, that even though the Roman rule is unjust, God put it in place for God’s own purpose, and believers should obey the laws and pay their taxes. But nowhere does Paul say or even imply that the particular government his first readers were living under is an exception — that would be quite the opposite of what he actually says here.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, I accept your apology, but would gently remind you that any sentence taken in isolation will have the appearance of being unqualified. But look at the verses *around* that sentence, and maybe even in other portions of the book, and you may get a fuller, more informed view.
For example, as I alluded, the scriptures all over the place describe the Roman govt as a terrible, ungodly menace. Can you point to any biblical language that expresses *honor* toward that govt? You think Paul, in our current passage, is conferring honor on *Nero and Rome*? He really believes the Roman govt is acting as “a minister of God…*for good*”? That it’s “not a terror to good conduct”? In v 1-7, Paul is defining what good rule should look like. And you read that as him describing Nero?
Come on, Conan.
Report comment to moderator
I can see why it’s a problematic passage that many Christians might want to pass over…
Do you *ever* make a contribution without this nonsense?
Report comment to moderator
Not approving of the government and still advising believers to obey the laws are not contradictory. Paul was not giving an abstract lesson in civics here, he was giving very specific instructions to a specific group of people in a specific situation.
This is not a single “sentence taken in isolation.” It’s seven verses comprising 12 sentences in the NIV translation that make a comprehensive argument But if you want to look at it more broadly, sure.
The words leading into 7:1-7 speak further of peaceful acceptance and specifically instruct: “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”
And after 7:17 Paul talks about paying your debts and how the commandments can all be summed up as “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
So really, the sentences around the passage don’t alter the meaning of it in the slightest. And the real problem with your interpretation is in 7:1: “there is no authority except that which God has established”
This is clear, unambiguous and nowhere is it mitigated by so much as a single word indicating there might be exceptions.
In v 1-7, Paul is defining what good rule should look like.
No, he’s not. He’s saying all civil rulers are appointed by God. Those are the words of the passage. He does not say “A good government looks like … ” .. He does not say “Many rulers are appointed by God, but some are not … ” He says all are, and he says it directly to people suffering persecution under Roman rule.
And you read that as him describing Nero?
I don’t think he’s describing anyone specific. I think he’s talking about the civic duty of the believer toward even cruel authorities.
As for #139, I think my “nonsesne” is pretty well vindicated by how hard you’re trying to make this passage mean something other than what it says.
Report comment to moderator
So no answer to the questions I asked? You *do* believe Paul is including Nero among those who are servants of God for the good of those Christians Nero himself was persecuting? You do think Paul was reassurung these people suffering under Roman rule that Rome was actually punishing evil and fostering peace for those who do good?
I really don’t mind these discussions–usually like them–but I’m bored trying to cut through your trash talk to get to the issue at hand. Reasonable people can disagree over the meanings of this passage, Conan. I welcome your response, but if it includes more of your incessant psychoanalysis–like why I *reeeaaaly* interpret the passage this way–go ahead and count me out.
Report comment to moderator
#137 Conan & Macrutabaga. I am not sure I am following your entire conversation or what Conan’s ultimate point is, however Conan is right when he says this:
“I gather that’s the import of Paul’s words here, that even though the Roman rule is unjust, God put it in place for God’s own purpose, and believers should obey the laws and pay their taxes. But nowhere does Paul say or even imply that the particular government his first readers were living under is an exception — that would be quite the opposite of what he actually says here.”
Paul is telling Christians to obey all governments, no matter how evil to the extent we can. There is a caveat in Acts 5:32 where Peter says, “We ought to obey God rather than men.” And so, at some point civil disobedience is warranted as Daniel demonstrated before Nebuchadnezzar.
But it is invalid to say that Christians should only follow good governments, since none are good, no not one.
Report comment to moderator
Feel free to get up to speed, Xion.
Report comment to moderator
Gary Moore, My wife was reading in bed last night and came across a Rand quote about being your own hero and I thought of our conversation. I agree with you that Christians should not adopt this as a philosophy, since Christianity is superior.
However, Freud and Rand and Nietzsche and Sarte and Jung and a host of others do cause me to think. But you are right that it isn’t for everyone.
Rand used the word ‘hero’ to describe the ubermensch. She called on people to be their own heros. In other words, don’t settle for a mediocre life, but get out there and be all you can be. From a Christian point of view we would say, be all God would have you to be. So why even bother with Rand? Well, in a secular world, secular ideas have some value. And she was right about socialism that it feeds on liberty.
I admire Rand and other atheistic philosophers who so handicapped themselves with materialism, yet still were able to find a few gems anyway. It is a mere pittance compared with the vast treasures of wisdom available to Christians, but Christians can become complacent and forget from whence they came. These philosophers, while wrong about many things, help keep me grounded, but it isn’t for everyone.
Report comment to moderator
Mac: So no answer to the questions I asked? You *do* believe Paul is including Nero among those who are servants of God for the good of those Christians Nero himself was persecuting? You do think Paul was reassurung these people suffering under Roman rule that Rome was actually punishing evil and fostering peace for those who do good?
As I already said, Paul was telling the Christians in Rome to respect and obey the civil authorities, regardless of whether they were “godly” or not.
Think about it .. presumably, Christians would be well disposed to obey civil authorities who acted in accord with Christian beliefs. If the government of Rome at that time accepted the Christians and enacted laws that the Christians approved of, they wouldn’t need to be told to obey the laws or respect the government. They would already be doing so.
But Paul took the time to argue at length as to why Christians should respect and obey the government, and to say categorically without exception that “is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.” (Rom. 13:1).
That he saw a need to make the case at length strongly suggests that his audience was inclined not to obey the government and needed to be instructed to. Which would not be the case if he were only talking about governments that reflect Christian values.
Report comment to moderator
#145 You are exactly right Conan. If Christians were only to obey good government, then they would not need to obey any, since government is a necessary evil (intolerably so) according to Thomas Paine.
By the way, I know several Christians who take Mac’s view who use it as an excuse to not pay taxes or follow the law. That’s a horribly incorrect interpretation of Romans 13 and I tell them so!
Report comment to moderator
Either of you guys care to actually address the gist of my point up there? I’m not convinced you missed it. How do Nero and Rome fit the description of the govt Paul describes in those verses–a govt that punishes evil, protects the upright and rules for their good, etc? You could at least include that in your analysis of the passage.
As I already said, Paul was telling the Christians in Rome to respect and obey the civil authorities, regardless of whether they were “godly” or not.
I know. We’ve established that that’s your view. How does it account for the stark contrast between the govt Paul describes and the rule exhibited by Nero and Rome?
Xion, I know a lot of dispensationalists who hold to certain doctrines for this or that ridiculous motive. I don’t go around making insinuations about other dispensatioanlists in online forums because of it, though.
Report comment to moderator
The point you’re missing (ignoring), Mac, is that Paul simply stated that all governing authorities are appointed by God and are to be obeyed. How do you read into that “all” a qualification so it really only means “some?”
To the Christians in Rome who were busy rebelling against the Earthly authorities, Paul wrote: “Whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted.” How do you think his first audience would NOT have taken that as an admonition directly to them?
Paul apparently believed that Nero was unwittingly accomplishing God’s purpose in his rule, as do all Earthly rulers.
Report comment to moderator
The point you’re missing (ignoring), Mac, is that Paul simply stated that all governing authorities are appointed by God and are to be obeyed. How do you read into that “all” a qualification so it really only means “some?”
I’ve spoken to this. If Paul means to be submissive to *all* govt, to “respect” and “honor” all govt, he is contradicting both the ensuing verses and the numerous references in other scriptures denouncing Roman rule and even rejoicing in its destruction. If you wish to apply the “all” to the entire passage, how do you explain the obvious exception of Nero and Rome to the character of Paul’s description?
Paul apparently believed that Nero was unwittingly accomplishing God’s purpose in his rule, as do all Earthly rulers.
This doesn’t do justice to the text. Paul is speaking in concrete terms, not in esoteric “it’ll all work out” language. Paul says he (Nero/Rome, if we’re to take your view) arouses terror in the evildoer and peace among the upright. He (Nero/Rome) bears the sword of the magistrate on God’s behalf. How can this be read as reference to Nero?
Report comment to moderator
I’ve spoken to this. If Paul means to be submissive to *all* govt, to “respect” and “honor” all govt, he is contradicting both the ensuing verses and the numerous references in other scriptures denouncing Roman rule and even rejoicing in its destruction
He may be. I’m not a Biblical inerrantist so the fact that this passage contradicts other passages, to me just further shows the human origins of the book.
It IS what he says here. He says NO GOVERNMENT exists except what God has put in place. No exceptions. And he says it directly to people suffering persecution in a pagan culture … if he wanted to tell them that their particular ruler was an exception, that would have been the place to have done it.
Report comment to moderator
Paul says he (Nero/Rome, if we’re to take your view) arouses terror in the evildoer and peace among the upright. He (Nero/Rome) bears the sword of the magistrate on God’s behalf. How can this be read as reference to Nero?
Not easily, I agree. But there is that sweeping assertion at the opening of the passage that no authority exists except what God has established. If he did not mean to include the rule his original recipients were living under, why did he not clearly say so?
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
And I don’t mean to imply the meaning of the text is easy to fully discern. We’ve come a bit afield of the original post that motivated my entry to the discussion (i.e., I don’t believe Ro 13 calls for the kind of honor and respect of the world’s Neros that Gary Moore seemed to indicate up there somewhere).
I do think Paul in this passage, and other scriptures elsewhere, qualifies his admonition to “submit” to govt for reasons I’ve mentioned. Also note the word “for” in v 3 where Paul writes, “*For* rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad.” He’s conditioning what he has just said–submit to govt–on what he is about to say–govt punishes evil and fosters good on God’s behalf.
I do believe Christians should live lawfully, even under wicked govts, but only to a degree. Questions of legitimacy, covenant keeping and breaking, tyranny, etc., are valid considerations–biblically speaking, breach of covenant releases the offended party from its terms (of course, this isn’t a solely biblical concept).
It may also be worth noting that Paul may have written Romans before the fire of Rome burned much of the city and, so goes the account, provoked Nero’s persecution of Christians. Until then, his rule was relatively peaceful (even if he was a lunatic in private).
I wonder if Xion believes the American Revolution was a violation of Ro 13.
Report comment to moderator
What is disturbing about many of the posts in this “conversation” is that some seem to have bought into the private/public split characteristic of Enlightenment modernism. It’s the notion that religion and morality are in the realm of personal opinion and private values (Cf. Paul Ryan’s response to a query about Rand’s religious views in which he declines to comment on a person’s private religious beliefs.) while science (including the social sciences) are in the realm of public fact. Once Christians give in to this dichotomy then they have bought into what Lesslie Newbigin called “public atheism.” (See his book The Gospel in a Pluralist Society.)
BTW, the comment about Jesus reference to rich folks, camels, and eyes of needles: If you think he meant it’s just more difficult to get in if you’re wealthy, then you miss the whole point of the exchange. Not only is it impossible for a camel to get through the eye of a needle, but the disciples’ response only makes sense if “impossibility” is precisely what Jesus meant. Watering down the point to “easier/harder” compromises the absolute necessity of grace (for the rich and the poor).
Report comment to moderator
This thread has been an eye-opener.
Thank you, Gary Moore and Docok for your rational arguments.
Thank you Conan for patiently fending off Mac’s ridiculous eisegesis. Oh, I never dreamed I’d say that to one who does not hold to Biblical inerrancy!
And Mac, you keep asserting that Paul chides the Romans and that “there are the scriptures all over the place describ(ing) the Roman govt as a terrible, ungodly menace.” Please find them for me! Even Jesus takes a rather desultory approach to denouncing Roman oppression, he actually says if you’re compelled to go a mile by a Centurion, go two. I don’t see chiding everywhere, by anyone, but rather I see martyrs glorying in the darkness of their prisons, which serve to display even more to the World the beauty of the light of the gospel.
And Xion, your defense of Ayn Rand! What a waste of your time. Her vain philosophy is “gobbledygook mankind bickers about.” You spent your energy much better on Mrs. Seu’s thread on the reality of death, that was a very eloquent and true commment.
Rand really is, as someone noted, a teenage boy’s prophetess. She gives a platform to egoists and a license to libertines. She holds no water. She’s a broken cistern. Why give any devotion or even approval to one so controlled by deceitful spirits? How I love that God has not called many who are powerful,
“but God chose the foolish things of the world, that he might put to shame them that are wise; and God chose the weak things of the world, that he might put to shame the things that are strong.”
Jesus took on the form of a slave. He was never, ever an Ubermensch in his incarnation. That was simply a bizarre comment! I would admire Jesus alone, and not mess up my witness with those who think more highly of themselves than they ought, those who do not understand their talents and wealth were given to them given to them by a gracious God. And that it is a delight to serve Him with them.
Report comment to moderator
Actually NJLawyer, this is a direct quote from American Values Network.
“If members of the religious right are so eager to legislate morality, perhaps they should start by doing all they can NOT to appeal to our base desire to increase our own wealth, because Jesus told us that we “cannot love both God and wealth” (Matthew 6:24), and as Paul said, “the love of money is the root of many kinds of evil” (1 Timothy 6:10).”
They know the quote. Conservatives just like it when anyone else uses “money is the root of all evil” rather than “the love of money is the root…” because it’s easier to defend themselves and brush off another of Jesus’ teachings. But alas, there are hypocrites on both sides of the fence. We’re all SINNERS after all.
Report comment to moderator
And Karen Butler, you words and thoughts are amazing – I would hang out with you anytime! Kudos to you, I wish I was as wise.
Report comment to moderator
I think I’ve stumbled upon a group of people, who have much more time than I do, to read.
Report comment to moderator
Hi Karen Butler! How goes it?
Thank you Conan for patiently fending off Mac’s ridiculous eisegesis.
What a wonderful way to segue into your invitation to me for dialogue! Think I’ll pass.
Report comment to moderator
Xion, I think you are incorrect. There’s a delicate balance between feeding a man and teaching a man. They often both go hand in hand. When was the last time you have taken down your “wall” when speaking with others or giving advice? Have you truly heard the needs of people who are down on their luck, or do you find yourself falling back on repetition of the Bible.
I have a well respected friend who sermons at his Baptist church on weekends, but when I have a problem, a REAL problem that I can’t figure out on my own, I’ve learned to ask my semi-atheist friend who actually LISTENS, than ask my quasi-pastor friend. I know the the latter will suggest, I’ve heard all the Bible teachings before. I’m Catholic with plenty of years of catechism.
In my experience, it’s often more important to CARE than hone the ability to quote Bible passages and dissect the meanings all day long. If you are doing good work, and you aren’t afraid to fail or falter, people will identify your genuineness.
And THAT is what many conservatives and Reps seem to be missing for me. They don’t actually CARE about the problems the average human is facing. They DO care about tax cuts for the rich, which goes 150% against Jesus’ teachings, wasting trillions of dollars on DEATH, while they could be teaching (so many children) to fish for a lifetime.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks, Christian for your kind comments.
I’m sorry your Baptist friend just offers platitudes. I was raised Catholic, but recently joined a Southern Baptist church. I have found genuinely caring community there, and Bible verses with skin on them.
Report comment to moderator
You’re going to pass, Mac, because there simply aren’t any Scriptures to back up your assertions. Not in Romans 13. Nowhere. I am sorry if you are offended by this truth.
I kept hoping someone would ask for some back up to your baseless observations, but no one did. “Ridiculous” was not a personal judgement of you; (perhaps I should have said “nonsense”, as you lablelled Conan’s mild teasing of you?) I think you are smart and funny, but I believe you are dangerously wrong here. And I am genuinely interested in this subject.
And since it is so near Independence Day, I am going to broach the subject I think you have already alluded to. You don’t have to answer if you’re still mad at me (I’m sure there are plenty of patriots who will rise to this query), but I have always been skeptical of the Scriptural basis for the American Revolution. I agree with John MacArthur here:
“People have mistakenly linked democracy and political freedom to Christianity. That’s why many contemporary evangelicals believe the American Revolution was completely justified, both politically and scripturally. They follow the arguments of the Declaration of Independence, which declares that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are Divinely endowed rights. . . . But such a position is contrary to the clear teachings and commands of Romans 13:1-7. So the United States was actually born out of a violation of New Testament principles, and any blessings God has bestowed on America have come in spite of that disobedience by the Founding Fathers.”
Now I’ve done it! Stirred it up real good. And I’m so busy, too! But can anyone do better than David Barton? http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=24548
Barton has footnotes saying the reformers back up his position, but if you go to the Institutes you come back very disappointed, as Calvin says here:
“…let us at the same time guard most carefully against spurning or violating the venerable and majestic authority of rulers, an authority which God has sanctioned by the surest edicts, although those invested with it should be most unworthy of it, and, as far as in them lies, pollute it by their iniquity. Although the Lord takes vengeance on unbridled domination, let us not therefore suppose that that vengeance is committed to us, to whom no command has been given but to obey and suffer.”
I find nothing in the Luther passages Barton has footnoted that justify rebellion. I think he’s doing a Rob Bell here. And he has only an encyclopedia entry for Zwingli, and that poor Reformer died so ignominiously, the sword in his hand was not for the Lord, but for Zurich!
That is where your arguments lead, Mac.
Report comment to moderator
You’re going to pass, Mac, because there simply aren’t any Scriptures to back up your assertions.
Are you, like, 12?
Report comment to moderator
Mac,
Sarcasm before, Ad hominem, now. Guess I was right–there’s nothing you can cite. No scriptural defense at all.
How disappointing.
Report comment to moderator
So you’re the only one who gets to taunt? Waaaahhh. No fair!
I don’t get folks who debate like you on these boards. (Another guy here does it, too, sometimes). I’ve made—what?—10?, 15? posts in here? Kind of an indicator I’m willing to engage. All the while, you’ve lurked around waiting for someone to ask your question, but nobody did. Would have taken you about 9 seconds to do it yourself, I’d guess. But when you finally work up the strength for the feat, you open with snide, and follow up with neener-neener. I know–I’m sure you’ll claim I’m just whining and all a-scared of your smartitude, but no. I don’t have time to hang out here all day. Dealing with snark is like trying to bend spoons with your mind—at least in my case. I hate it. It’s a waste of my time.
So yeah, I could have used World’s bandwidth in the paragraph above talking about Rome and views on Daniel 7:7, Revelation 13, etc., or Puritan and Huguenot views on the limits of submitting to govt–and discussions about such passages are of interest to me. For real! But comin’ out of the gate tryn-ta smack me down? Tell it to the hand, sista.
Report comment to moderator
Mac, I have eight children and I homeschool. Summer vacation is sort of a break, but I’m collating material and grading and getting transcripts and right now I have a eight year old girl begging me to take her outside to garden. What a waste of time this has been for me.
All the rest of your comment adds weight to my musings with Xion recently on why people hide behind pseudonyms. Shame on you. You would never talk that way to me in the church fellowship hall.
Or perhaps given your views of Romans 13,this is entirely consistent.
Report comment to moderator
Karen Butler,
I congratulate you on your dedication to your children. In all seriousness, this country needs more people like you. My wife’s doing her part, though we only have 3 little blessings.
I’m a little taken aback by your claim to the high road. Let me ask: Why didn’t you just ask me about that Romans 13 aspect of my posts? Would that have really been so hard? Would you have approached a brother in church by saying, “I give John credit for not losing it with you, given the absurdity of your comments. So, what do you have to say for yourself now? Oh? Don’t want to discuss it? What’re you, scared?”
Report comment to moderator
#161 Karen Butler “And Xion, your defense of Ayn Rand! What a waste of your time. Her vain philosophy is “gobbledygook mankind bickers about.”
Would you say the same thing about your auto mechanic if he fixed your car perfectly for years, yet was an atheist.
The point is that Rand had unique insight into Socialism and America’s weakness for it a half century ahead of her time. Christians hate her because she was not Christian. I admire the few things she got right about American politics.
Mature Christians have discernment and don’t need to trash everything that is not Christian. Rom 14 explains the propensity of weak Christians to throw out everything, even things that are good out of immature zeal.
I’ve studied all of this for decades. I am not fooled by atheists nor intimidated by weak Christians who are too timid to consider wisdom outside of their hermetically sealed bubbles.
Report comment to moderator
I’m not in any bubble Xion, if you mean me. I may homeschool, but I’m hardly barricading myself from the world. You are caricaturing the wrong person again.
I have a subscription to the Atlantic, and read the New York Review of Books, and the New Yorker when my mother-in-law passes them on to me. I peek at Huff Post when I have the stomach for it. I am continuously listening to NPR–I love Fresh Air, especially, for its interviews of culture-makers.
I am hardly hermetically sealed.
My point (I forget how I have to use bullets for you!) is that you are not just privately admiring a very dangerous thinker. You have promoted her on a public forum. Whether you like it or not you have a responsibility as someone who posts on a national and influential platform, and that makes you a teacher of sorts–you influence opinion.
You are not in some hermetically sealed bubble. You are not an island unto yourself.
James says not many of us should aspire to be teachers. You and I will have to answer for it if something we post stumbles a weak brother by giving them license for ungodly attitudes and behaviors they might not have considered otherwise.
That realization sobers me up some, and I try to weigh my words carefully before I hit “submit.”
Report comment to moderator
Mac,
“Let me ask: Why didn’t you just ask me about that Romans 13 aspect of my posts? Would that have really been so hard?”
See my comments to Xion, above. That sobering realization makes me want to wait and see if someone else will make the point for me.
Also, take the three little blessings, and multiply their chaos by three. And factor in this, that more than half of my blessings are teenagers!
I hope that helps you understand–yes, sometimes, it really, really is too hard. My hair is going grey at a rapid rate.
Report comment to moderator
#168 So then, have you read Rand’s works? Or would you consider that a waste of time? If you have read her books, then would you consider answering my challenge in #26?
Rather than merely going around on a Christian high horse trashing atheists (not that you are necessarily, but some do), I would prefer to engage them on their ideas in a similar vein as CS Lewis, RC Sproul and so on.
Atheists aren’t wrong about everything. I wouldn’t recommend this for others, but for me considering the criticism of my faith thoughtfully helps me to grow in faith.
Report comment to moderator
Well Mac, Karen makes a good point. You claimed that there are verses “chiding” the Romans all over, and when pressed you finally come up with Daniel (written in the pre-Christian era and centuries before Nero) and Revelation (written after Paul.) And you wrap that in a package of insult and defensiveness.
Report comment to moderator
LOL! OK Conan, got me. Didn’t realize Daniel was an OT book. I thought it was one of the Gospels.
Report comment to moderator
No you didn’t. But I maintain that the appearance of a symbolic vision that may or may not refer to Rome in two prophetic books is not anywhere close to your assertion that the New Testament chides or chastises Roman rule frequently.
Revelation was not even written when Paul wrote to the Christians in Rome. The Christians in Rome, being converted pagans and not Jews, probably knew nothing of Daniel.
So once again, we have Paul writing to Christians living under a tyrant and directly instructing them to obey the earthly authorities and regard them as directly appointed by God.
Report comment to moderator
Covered the “living under a tyrant” thing.
The dating of Revelation (and Daniel) is irrelevant to my point.
The audience–Gentile and Jew–was quite likely familiar with Daniel and the OT. That’s implied variously throughout the epistle.
Report comment to moderator
I thought I had included this in one of my last couple posts, but I didn’t:
I did overstate my case when I wrote the Scriptures condemn Rome “all over the place” (or something to that effect). Certainly, it doesn’t. I meant that when Roman govt is specifically mentioned (unlike Paul’s reference to govt in general), it is depicted as a menace, and its destruction is celebrated. The point being, Paul would not here be describing a govt that fosters peace and prosecutes evil but which govt is elsewhere described as dreadful and terrible.
Report comment to moderator
Mac: The point being, Paul would not here be describing a govt that fosters peace and prosecutes evil but which govt is elsewhere described as dreadful and terrible.
But even so, he does exactly that.
Imagine: You’re living under a government that treats people of your belief poorly. You complain about it, rebel against it in small ways and generally resent it. One day a letter arrives from your spiritual leader admonishing you that no government exists that God has not established, and telling you to respect it and not rebel.
How else could that reasonably be taken other than as a corrective to your rebellious attitudes? How do you read that and think “Of course he doesn’t mean this government,” when clearly he said ALL governments are put into place by God?
Report comment to moderator
But even so, he does exactly that…. How do you read that and think “Of course he doesn’t mean this government,” when clearly he said ALL governments are put into place by God?
I’m at a loss as to how else to explain it than I already have, particularly in 149. I hope you realize that I’ve already acknowledged a couple times that Paul says ALL etc.
Imagine either of two scenarios:
A) You’re reading Paul’s letter after the great fire in Rome [this appears to be your estimate of the dating of Romans, which is fine]. The Roman govt under which you live is persecuting and killing you all the day long. The emperor lights his driveway with your burning torsos. And Paul tells you that that govt is God’s servant to you for good, striking fear in bad guys and ensuring peace for you, the good guys? You are to “respect and honor” such rule and ruler? I don’t find that plausible.
or,
B) You read the letter in an era that *predates* Nero flipping his lid. [I believe this to be the dating of the epistle.] The govt does generally foster peace and quell misconduct. Though Paul speaks in general terms–not referring specifically to Rome or Nero–you can see how the current govt does conform to various aspects of Paul’s characterization. Perhaps unlike some who during Christ’s advent wanted Him to establish an earthly kingdom, you take Paul’s point that the establishment of the New Covenant does not mean the abolition of civil government as a legitimate institution; that among the radical aims of the Christian church, a separate political posture of either anarchy or indifference is not one of them [and I'm not suggesting that's all Paul means in the passage]. I find this a reasonable reading of the text, and more in harmony with the rest of scripture than the alternative reading.
Report comment to moderator
Mac: Fair enough. I can go along with (B).
But here’s the problem with it, for those who believe Paul’s epistles are meant to be taken as inspired scripture for the ages and not just responses to immediate concerns: Nero’s wigout was still coming.
And the passage still says that no authority exists etc. etc. If we take that as a message to the Roman Christians in the earlier era you describe, there’s no difficulty. He said it to them, for them, and it’s not especially pertinent elsewhere.
But if we take that as inspired, inerrant Scripture, then his reference to all rulers means all rulers, in any place and time: Nero, Henry VIII, Stalin, Hitler, Amin, Vlad Tepes and any others of the very long list of cruel tyrants in world history.
In my view, the Bible is a collection of documents written by humans in specific times, places and cultural contexts, and not the inspired, inerrant word of God. The notion of Paul being provincial, inconsistent, time-bound and even wrong is not troubling for me. But I think that for a Christian who takes the ‘inerrant word of God’ view, passages such as this must be problematic.
Report comment to moderator
But if we take that as inspired, inerrant Scripture, then his reference to all rulers means all rulers, in any place and time: Nero, Henry VIII, Stalin, Hitler, Amin, Vlad Tepes and any others of the very long list of cruel tyrants in world history.
The passage says all rulers are ordained by God. It doesn’t say submit to all rulers, and submit no matter what. You could start with that assumption, but once you got to Paul’s description of how the govt promotes peace and curbs evil, you’d realize there is qualification to the instruction to honor and submit.
I’m not hostile to those who hold the submit-no-matter-what view (and for the record, I wasn’t being defensive earlier), but as I alluded, I’m not espousing a view foreign to Christian history. I haven’t said anything all that different than what many Puritans, Hugeunots, Scottish Covenanters, and prominent Christians have said in the past.
Parenthetically, the word translated “by” or “of” in v. 1 (”those [authorities] that exist have been instituted *by* God”) can be read as further qualification on Paul’s part. Strong’s defines that term,
Report comment to moderator
After plowing through all 179 comments, I think I should offer my response to the mix of thoughts, opinions,barbs,insults and misunderstandings. 1.) In order for two people to have a mutually beneficial productive discussion both must be able and willing to understand what the other person means when they express a thought. What I think they mean is irrelevant and usually wrong. Once I understand what they mean then I can form a response and not waste time or energy on misconceptions. 2.)To the subject of the article, Ayn Rand said”Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification”. What some call “syncretizing” she called “integration”. To the degree a person integrates all principles and premises and beliefs and goals etc. into their life- that is the degree they will live and enjoy their life as a human being. 3.In its most concise form her philosophy is stated by John Galt “I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man nor ask another man to live for mine”. Once you understand this the way Ayn Rand meant it, a lot of confusion and debate of her philosophy will not only be unnecessary but nonproductive. 4.)Jesus said we must “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and mind and strength” and “Love your neighbor as yourself”. If-as Ayn Rand said -”To love is to value”(and a value only exists in the context of life) and since God created us to fellowship with and glorify Him- to love ourselves as God loves us is to want the best possible life for ourselves which we can only attain by loving and worshipping God. 5.)Basically what Ayn Rand did is what all unbelievers do- she chose to deny that God is God. This is at least understandable given how God is portrayed by many who claim to be his followers. She settled for learning about God second-handedly instead of going right to the source Himself. 6.) She thinks of Man as God created him- as he was BEFORE THE FALL. Man was beautiful,sinless,intelligent,creative,strong, etc.- just as she describes Galt, Fransisco,and Rearden. She even states that Galt,Fransisco and Danneskold are “normal men”. I would say they were as Adam was – before he decided to disobey God and brought sin into the world. 7.) The flaws in Ayn Rand’s thinking are primarily in her views of the nature of God. Her views of Man(as God created him to be and before the fall)I think are pretty insightful. 8.) What Man needs to realize and accept is how far he has fallen from what God created him to be; how much he owes God for corrupting the life God gave him and accept the gift of redemption Jesus Christ paid for to restore himto fellowship with God.
Report comment to moderator
In response to this and the first as not reported correctly, Easier for a CAMEL to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter into the Kingdom.
“BY NJLawyer 06.17.11 AT 3:27 PM Jesus said it was easier for a rich man to go through the eye of the needle — he didn’t say it was impossible. And as we all know, with God, all things are possible.”
Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
Matthew 19:23-25 (in Context) Matthew 19 (Whole Chapter)
As is most of the time, words taken out to fit the need. I feel as Christians we need to start breaking down the Dividing walls of our respective named faith centers and know we are one in the same family. Divided we fall, united we stand, and so how long will it be before we sit back pushing eachother away while they come for our faith in our Word and Christ. If we do not judge one another We the people can have do much work for the Lord in these times.
How can Christians admire the philosophy of Ayn Rand? This is a good one, How indeed. I do not admire any other than My Lord Jesus, The Fathe and the Holy Spirit. So a small group does not group us all into one lump. Thanks anyways.
Report comment to moderator
Personally, I can’t imagine how anyone can consider themselves a “conservative” and also an adherent to any mystical religion. The essence of conservative values is to reject speculation or concepts that are not clearly evident in the world. Skepticism is the first value of conservative thought. The values of Jesus are clearly liberal: Give all your wealth to the poor. Turn the other cheek. It is better to give than to receive. It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven. And unquestioned belief in a “supreme being” that is in no way evident. These are NOT ideas that anyone who considers themselves “conservative” can embrace. The name, conservative has actually been altered to absorb these absurd and completely liberal views really only over the past 3 decades. Barry Goldwater, the conservative Republican candidate for President in 1963, shared none of them.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!