Are Ayn Rand and Jesus friends?

As readers of thefrontieratgrace.com, you are used to our Wednesday “Ask Beau” feature, in which we seek to give biblical answers to practical questions that men face (we can be reached at frontier@gracepolaris.org). Recently we received the following question from Chris via email:

With some attention being brought to Ayn Rand and her influence on many politicians and others, is Ayn Rand’s philosophy, “Objectivism,” in any way compatible with Christianity?

Today our feature is more properly called “Ask Dan,” because Dan Hermiz, a frequent contributor to the blog, has taken a shot at answering this one. Enjoy!

It’s a simple question, on the face of it. But the truth is that Rand, like many philosophers, spent a lifetime formulating and articulating her own unique philosophy which is, as she put it, “for living on earth.” This is to say that it is both systematic and comprehensive. It deals extensively with epistemology, morality, metaphysics, truth, politics, justice, and economics—just about everything a worldview needs. And because of this, what might seem simple at first glance is actually quite complex.

However, I do not believe that complexity must rule out the possibility for clarity. And having at once a healthy respect for complexity, yet a strong, even burdensome desire for clarity in regards to Rand’s philosophy, I admit that I have lamented on more than one occasion that “I’m waiting for the epic take-down” of her philosophic construct from someone far more qualified than me. But alas, I’m still waiting. And it may interest you to know that according to a survey conducted by the Library of Congress, Rand’s Atlas Shrugged ranks second, behind only the Bible, on a list of the most personally influential books among the American reader.

If I may, before jumping into a more analytical arena, I’d like to briefly share my personal feelings on this issue. For the lover of free-market economies, limited government, individual rights, reason, the law of non-contradiction, and the opportunity for personal achievement, Ayn Rand is a seductive ally. So seductive, that in spite of her being a pro-choice atheist, many “conservative Evangelicals” find themselves deeply enamored with her philosophy. I think this speaks volumes to the rhetorical force of her arguments, but in not every case is it true that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” In my personal opinion (for what it’s worth), Rand’s philosophy, on the whole, is one of the darkest, most destructive and godless philosophies known to modern man—second only perhaps to nihilism. Yes, I just said that.

While I suppose that on some of the details, Rand’s philosophy may align with a biblical worldview, I am far more concerned with its central tenets. In a nutshell, Rand has described her philosophy as follows: “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.” She further described her purpose in writing both novels and philosophy: “to define and present the image of an ideal man . . . what man can be, and ought to be.”*

In Rand’s philosophy, the individual, quite literally, is the moral center of the universe—God.

“The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no god’” (Psalm 14:1).*

Rand was an atheist.

“Greater love has no one than this, that someone lays down his life for his friends” (John 15:13).

According to Rand, “in love, the currency is virtue . . . you love them for what they have achieved in their own character . . . you only love those who deserve it.”

“God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble” (James 4:6).

Rand believed that “rational self-interest” was the highest form of morality. And, if I may opine once more, her arrogance was breathtaking. In her own words, she had “superior contempt” for most of her peers, considered herself “the most creative person alive” and openly criticized just about every thinker, teacher, and philosopher in history.

Christ, the real “ideal man,” said this in Mark 10:42–45: “You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

In Christ’s kingdom, the currency is servanthood.

Rand believed self-sacrifice, or “altruism” of any kind, to be the highest form of immorality.

I’ll leave you with one interesting, yet profoundly relevant anecdote from Rand’s life. Rand considered Atlas Shrugged to be “the one central integrating purpose of everything I did.” John Galt’s epic speech alone took her two years to complete, as it was essentially the “summing up [of] all the essentials of the novel.” En route to its publication, Rand interviewed several publishers, and in a discussion with the publisher who eventually won the “contest,” Rand was asked, “Wouldn’t you have to clash with the Judeo-Christian Ethic?” Years later, in an interview, Rand said that it was for precisely this reason that the publisher “got the book.” In her estimation, he was the publisher who most “got it.” Rand’s philosophy, in her own words, is wholly antithetical to a Christian worldview. And she wouldn’t have us thinking otherwise.

(Note: Quotations from Ayn Rand are taken from the documentary, Ayn Rand: In Her Own Words, directed by John Little and Robert Anderson. Biblical quotations are from the English Standard Version.)

Christmas presence

For some reason I find myself appreciating the Christmas season more these days. Yes, my hatred of the song “Jingle Bell Rock” remains high, but nostalgia may be weakening my defenses even against this grating schmaltz. For all the criticism that the Christmas season receives, there are lots of redeeming elements to it.

As my appreciation for Christmas grows, I should note a parallel, if unrelated, awakening that has taken place in my mind. I appreciate the incarnation more than I used to.

The word incarnation will be thrown around a lot in Christian circles during the month of December. Theologically the term refers to God becoming a man in the person of Jesus Christ (the term is related to the Latin words for “in” and “flesh”). This is the basic significance of Jesus’ birth: though we were distant from God, He reached out to us in the ultimate way by humbling Himself and becoming one of us (see Philippians 2:6–8).

If the Christmas story is true, then while we may certainly bemoan the trials of human existence, we cannot say that God doesn’t care about them. Whether or not we understand the reasons for our sorrow and suffering, we can see that God went to the utmost lengths to address it and even identify with it. It is impossible to reconcile the incarnation with the perception of God as detached and despotic.

The incarnation reminds us that one of the most significant gifts we can give is the gift of presence. Those of us who are husbands and fathers struggle with this sometimes. Even when we are in the same room with our families, we can be checked out, distant from the concerns, trials, and joys of our wives and children. Subtly we can take on the role of figurehead rather than the role of leader. This makes it impossible to live with our families “according to knowledge,” as Peter says it (1 Peter 3:7), because we are so practically distant that we don’t know them.

Giving the gift of presence means surrendering comfort, just as Jesus did. It means moving from my world into someone else’s. It means connecting meaningfully with others on their turf.

The Christmas season will soon be in full swing. Whether you find it joyful or frustrating, let the uniqueness of these weeks remind you of the greatest gift of Christmas presence, and may it encourage you to extend the gift to those closest to you.

—Beau Stanley

Thanksgiving for . . . giving

Post-holiday greetings, dear readers of thefrontieratgrace.com. I hope you had a pleasant Thanksgiving weekend and that you are able to digest your Monday inbox contents as thoroughly as you digested the highly nutritional food of the past several days. And in case your load is full today on the first day back after a holiday weekend, or if you’re saving time to wait in line for Cyber Monday sales, I thought I’d offer today just a brief reflection on giving thanks for something we usually leave out.

The above picture is a snapshot of our Grace Group in the midst of a service project we recently did in connection with Mission:Possible. You’ll notice that we are smiling (even if the bald guy on the far right has his eyes closed). Now, I know that most people prefer to smile for most kinds of pictures, but the juxtaposition of serving and smiles is helpful. Somebody very wise said, “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35).

When we serve others, we experience the blessing of God, and that’s something to be thankful for. Since we live in a world governed by a God who loves to give, it probably shouldn’t surprise us that things are set up this way.

The list of items for which we are thankful usually includes things we have received. As we wrap up Thanksgiving and head into the Christmas season, maybe we can also be thankful for the blessing of giving. Such a stance helps us not only to appreciate the gift of grace that we have received in Jesus, but to extend grace to others.

—Beau Stanley

(Note: Photo courtesy of Taylor McGowen)

Visiting hours, elections, and other good inconveniences

If you are just now noticing that American society is more fragmented than ever, you’re late to the (private) party. Social commentators quickly point out that American communities are far less cohesive than they used to be. We have back porches instead of front porches. Groups of all kinds are declining in membership, and significant affiliations have given way to marginal participation and Facebook friendship.

Occasionally, though, there are events that buck this trend. A few months ago at the visiting hours for the deceased wife of a family friend of ours, it struck me that in crisis situations we will still drop what we are doing to collectively support people we care about. I had a similar sensation in, of all places, the voting line on Election Day. Here were people in my immediate geography altering their schedules for a common purpose. (One woman appeared to have her pajamas on.) Neither of these occurrences represent the most profound experiences of local unity, but both of them made me feel a subtle pleasure that is getting harder to attain.

We Christians can bemoan the loss of community—both civic community and Christian community—but it would be far more productive for us to take personal steps to challenge the disintegration. And there is no more important step in this challenge than to declare ourselves willing to be inconvenienced and to waste time with one another (see Philippians 2:3,4, and our prior post on “time greed”). We often go in the opposite direction, though. Feeling insignificant in our detachment, we pursue so many “significant” activities that we don’t have room in our calendar for the relationships that grant life its depth (see the interesting interview with Harvard Business School professor Clayton Christensen on this topic).

The tremendous irony here is that the only way to escape our excessive time-angst is to spend our time liberally on other people, particularly those who are closest to us. This might mean fewer Facebook exchanges. It might mean less productivity. It might even mean a shorter obituary.

But then again, it also might mean that people will actually show up at our visiting hours.

—Beau Stanley

How should a Christian vote?

Welcome to our Wednesday “Ask Beau” post. The purpose of this weekly feature is to provide you, our readers, with biblical responses to questions you have about practical issues that you face.

As always, you may submit questions for future “Ask Beau” posts by contacting us at frontier@gracepolaris.org, or by leaving a comment on this post.

Living in a battleground state has its pros and cons. On the positive side, we Ohioans get to hear a lot from both candidates during a presidential campaign. On the negative side, we Ohioans get to hear a lot from both candidates during a presidential campaign. No, that is not a typo. Times such as these remind us of the blessings and frustrations that accrue to those experiencing, as the Columbus Dispatch cleverly put it, attention-surplus disorder.

One of the frustrations of being shelled with political ammunition is that we recognize political ads are quite one-sided, and often aimed to manipulate. Debates are somewhat more illustrative, I suppose, but even here we see that the discourse is often little more than posturing and pugnacious name calling. Candidates present contradictory accounts of the same data, and frankly all of this can be a little difficult to wade through even for those who are patient enough to think critically. So how should a Christian vote?

No, I’m not going to endorse any candidates. Instead, I’d like to suggest that we use the notion of worldview as a helpful means of political assessment.

The American political system is unlike the primary political systems depicted in the Bible. The predominant governmental model in the Old Testament was theocratic, and in the New Testament it was imperial. In either case, Joe the plumber didn’t really have a say in who would be calling the shots, so it stands to reason that we don’t have any explicit biblical commentary on voting.

Joe now does have a say, though, and if he is a Christian, he obviously should seek to vote in way that is pleasing to God. But here (as always) freedom introduces some ambiguity. Which candidate should get his vote? It’s not as simple as voting for people who claim the name of Christ. What if both candidates claim to be Christians and have completely opposite viewpoints on specific policies and on how the government should conduct itself generally? What if neither candidate claims to be a Christian? And is the point here to create a “Christian” government, anyway?

Especially for higher-level offices, assessing political candidates according to their worldviews may be more helpful than assessing them according to their specific policies or religious affiliations. Policies are symptomatic and relatively fleeting. Religious tags only tell part of the story, and they are less relevant in a democracy than in a theocracy. Generally, though, if we are paying attention we can get a very good sense of a politician’s worldview—his perspective on the most fundamental topics: the nature of God and man and the relationship between the two, the role of government, the nature of life, the balance between mercy and personal responsibility, and so on. Our duty and privilege as Christians is to assess where candidates stand on these foundational concepts and compare their stances to the biblical worldview. The candidates that are closest should get our vote.

This is not always an easy process, and the fact that sincere, thoughtful Christians can have intense disagreement on political issues and candidates should provoke us to an attitude of humility. And regardless of our vote, or of the outcome of a political process, may we always remember that God is in control and that “there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God” (Romans 13:1 ESV).

Now let’s get out and vote!

—Beau Stanley

Who cares what I think?

Being a pretty introspective person, I’m not quite sure what to make of the widely held notion that women are more in touch with their feelings than men. I’m more in touch with my feelings than I would like to be.

In our culture, that last statement sounds like crazy talk. At thefrontieratgrace.com we’ve often discussed our culture’s fascination with “finding ourselves.” We have argued, though, that who we are and where we should go are matters that are externally, not internally defined. It is God who tells us who we are, and it is Jesus Christ whom we are to follow. And perhaps strangely to us, we start to find out a lot more about our true identity when we cease to be so concerned about ourselves and focus on the Caller.*

A degree of introspection seems wise, but a lot of us go overboard with this. For such people it is very difficult to say with Paul, “To live is Christ” (Philippians 1:21). Paul so closely associated his identity and calling with Christ that he devalued his earthly resume (Philippians 3:7–9) and didn’t even judge himself (1 Corinthians 4:3–4)—an amazing fact in light of his tremendous intensity.

I keep coming back to this subject in part because it’s one that has been so helpful to me personally. More and more I’m finding that my impulse to understand and express what I am thinking is not necessarily helpful. Some would tell you that all good Christians keep a journal. For me that is a recipe for disaster. I’m plenty in touch with myself. Sometimes it’s just good to say, “Who cares what I think?”

—Beau Stanley

* Let me highlight again a wonderful book on this topic: Os Guinness, The Call: Finding and Fulfilling the Central Purpose of Your Life (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2003).

Good deeds and skinny jeans

Have you noticed that it’s now cool to do good deeds? Everybody is getting in on the whole charity thing.

Service opportunities are everywhere, so there’s little excuse for not getting involved. Too busy to spend time volunteering? A portion of the proceeds from your next coffee purchase may go to save the world from, well, something.

At one level I am very excited for our culture’s apparent reawakening to the value of doing good. This impulse that people have to bless others by contributing to causes larger than themselves is a result of our being made in the image of God, and it’s one of the many things that differentiates us from the animals.

At another level I’m a little bothered by the “coolness” of charity. The cultural emphasis on doing good seems to have taken on a faddish quality. Giving is as “in” as skinny jeans and starting an answer to a question with “So, . . .” If we’re going to do good, wouldn’t it be nice if our efforts were sustainable and meaningful?

In describing his own spiritual journey, Tim Keller speaks of his search for “a group of Christians who had a concern for justice in the world but who grounded it in the nature of God rather than in their own subjective feelings.”* I’d like to be that sort of person—one who genuinely cares about doing good, but who bases my good deeds in the truth of Jesus Christ. Then, when doing good gets tough, as it always does eventually, I’ll have an anchor that enables me to outlast a fad.

—Beau Stanley

*Tim Keller, The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism (New York: Riverhead, 2008), xiii.

The theology of Canadian humor

Canadians are funny.

No, this is not some sort of half-friendly wisecrack about our neighbors to the north. My exposure to the entertainment world (think of such humorists as Dan Akroyd and Mike Myers) as well as personal encounters with Canadians, confirms that there’s something going on here.

A couple of years ago I asked a very funny Canadian about this phenomenon. His opinion: Canadians have a sense of humor because they don’t take themselves too seriously. This remark has stuck with me, not least because I am learning to admire this trait in people, and I find it to be quite helpful when set in the right worldview.

There’s no question that God has wired me to be intense, and I’m sure my intensity often comes through in our blog posts. Some of us are so progress-oriented that we view brushing our teeth as a deeply strategic activity (and all the dentists cheer). However, with hyper-focus on the future comes myopia regarding the present and the past, and an inability to enjoy the life Jesus gives to us moment-by-moment.

It seems to me that Jesus’ instructions not to worry about tomorrow (Matthew 6:25,34) help us not to take ourselves as seriously as we otherwise might. Perhaps seriousness about God’s sovereignty and care liberates us to laugh at ourselves and enjoy His blessings. That won’t make us stand-up comedians, but it might make life a little more fun.

Is debt evil?

Welcome to our Wednesday “Ask Beau” post. The purpose of this weekly feature is to provide you, our readers, with biblical responses to questions you have about practical issues that you face.

As always, you may submit questions for future “Ask Beau” posts by contacting us at frontier@gracepolaris.org, or by leaving a comment on this post.

Before I dive into this question, let me thank you, faithful reader of thefrontieratgrace.com, for your patience. It’s been several days since our last post, and I’ve missed you—electronically speaking.

I don’t know that I’ve ever heard someone say that debt is evil, but in evangelical circles it seems that some have reawakened to the problems that debt can create. No doubt this has been spurred in part by the gigantic debt loads we face in America, both on the personal and governmental levels, and the very obvious consequences for such debt loads. Dave Ramsey says that “debt is dumb and cash is king.” Others join him in strong opposition to borrowing. But does the Bible actually forbid borrowing?

First of all, we should note that the Bible addresses the question of debt more often from the perspective of the lender or the guarantor than from the perspective of the borrower. A number of Old Testament passages forbid the Israelites from charging interest when lending money to their fellow Israelites (e.g., Exodus 22:25; Leviticus 25:36,37; Deuteronomy 23:19,20; Nehemiah 5:7,10). Furthermore, the proverbs “typically discourage lending rather than borrowing.”*

It is not accurate to say that the Bible forbids borrowing, but it is fair to say that the Bible is cautious about the debtor/creditor relationship. In addition to the many passages that speak negatively about guaranteeing someone else’s loan (Proverbs 6:1–5; 11:15; 17:18; 20:16; 22:26; 27:13), one proverb in particular stands out as a caution against borrowing: “The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is the slave of the lender” (Proverbs 22:7 ESV). When I look at this data, it is hard for me not to conclude that the Bible urges a much more cautious outlook toward debt than my training in commerce led me to adopt.

Other biblical passages are relevant here, such as the commendation of gradual, organic growth that we find in Proverbs 13:11, and the many scriptural calls to contentment (e.g., Luke 3:14; 2 Corinthians 12:10; Philippians 4:11; 1 Timothy 6:8; Hebrews 13:5). When you approach life from this perspective, debt becomes less “necessary.”

What are your thoughts on the issue of debt?

—Beau Stanley

*Tremper Longman III, Proverbs, Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 405.

A community assessment tool

This past Sunday’s message was the third in our Mission:Possible series, and after hearing two convicting messages on the topic of worship, you might have been expecting some recuperation time as we moved into the topic of community, which may seem to be a kinder, gentler subject. If you were paying attention, I doubt that you’d describe the challenging message as an opportunity to recuperate, though.

As Pastor Jonathan delved into this critical aspect of multiplying devoted followers of Jesus, sports terminology assured that we men would get the point. When it comes to the body of Christ, we aren’t free agents, we can’t opt out, and we don’t get to determine the roster. Neither can we invest only on our own terms, which is kind of like a wide receiver refusing to block, to continue the metaphor.

Men tend to like tangible metrics of success, so evaluating our maturity in Christ can be frustratingly difficult, because spiritual growth does tend to be somewhat abstract. The Bible offers helpful spiritual assessments, though, and some of them have to do with our experience of biblical community. When we love one another (John 13:34–35), “count others more significant than [ourselves]” (Philippians 2:3), and “stir up one another to love and good works” (Hebrews 10:24), we know that the life of Christ is being manifest in us.

Conversely, if a string of broken Christian relationships marks our lives—or if a string of no Christian relationships marks our lives (sorry, Facebook doesn’t count)—something is awry. To consider oneself spiritually mature and try to be a spiritual free agent is delusional.

God knew what He was doing when He created the body of Christ. Those who commit themselves to the glorious messiness of biblical community will find great joy amidst the challenge. And as Pastor Jonathan suggested, what a powerful witness it can be when the light of our fellowship in Christ shines in the relational darkness of this world.

—Beau Stanley