The Philosophy of Ayn Rand: Hatred of the authority of God

Years ago, I slogged through Atlas Shrugged out of the same sense of obligation to have read influential books that caused me to attempt, but choose to abandon, reading War and Peace.  Atlas Shrugged is not a well written novel, its plot is nonsensical, its protagonist is loathsome, and it contains extremely lengthy speeches given by various characters as a way of sharing Ayn Rand's philosophy.  The list of famous novels that don't deserve their accolades is not all that short, but Atlas Shrugged remains notable despite its fundamental flaws because of the impact of Rand's philosophy.  The 'rugged individualism' put forth by Rand is both a reaction to the authoritarianism of the 20th century, and a quintessential American idea, for few cultures have elevated the individual above the group as thoroughly and consistently.   As a teen the philosophy of Laissez-faire governance appealed to me, as it does to many a young person, but that appeal has soured over the years, in part because of a recognition that government has a crucial role to play in restraining human immorality, and also given my years of cooperation with our local government in anti-poverty and anti-homelessness efforts, in particular the county of Venango and the city of Franklin.  Whereas it is certainly possible for a Christian to take a libertarian view because of a mistrust of human governments (as they must be populated and run by sinful human beings and have a track record of misdeeds), there is no way for the hyper-libertarian views of Ayn Rand to be compatible with any sort of Christian worldview.  In fact, the moral philosophy advocated by Ayn Rand, ethical egoism, is a rejection of everything associated with Christian ethics, Rand's Jewish heritage, and religion in general.  To embrace ethical egoism is to reject, wholeheartedly, any obligation to God.



1.  Ethical egoism makes each individual the arbiter of right and wrong.
Historically speaking, it isn't a good idea to share philosophical/ethical space with Friedrich Nietzsche, but uncomfortable compatriots aside, ethical egoism's foundation is the belief that each individual should act in his/her own self-interest.  When ethical egoism is combined with Rand's libertarian political viewpoint, the result is a hoped-for false utopia in which no individual is required to do anything that isn't in their self interest.  It is a world free of compulsion.  In other words, I could help my neighbor, but only if I wanted to, to force me to pay a tax to support (or virtually any tax in Rand's view, for any purpose) a homeless shelter would be immoral.  It is only natural that human beings place themselves at the center of their own universe.  The word natural in that last sentence is used in the sense of 'expected', not in the sense of 'proper'.  As human beings who have a flawed human nature, one fully capable of doing evil, placing our own judgment and self-interest at the center of any ethical or governmental system cannot possibly produce a positive result.  It will merely make our own self-interested choices reality writ-large, enshrining in law and cultural practice the wants and desires of the selfish human heart.  Far from being an utopia, a fully realized Rand inspired society would be hell on earth, a danger eloquently expressed in William Golding's The Lord of the Flies.  Rand rightly abhorred the evil of the authoritarian systems of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, but replacing one egotistical maniac in the cases of Hitler or Stalin with millions of individual dictators running their own lives as they see fit will only disperse the moral evil, not eliminate it.  Whatever ethical, philosophical, or governmental system is created, if it is built upon human self-interest, it will fail, and fail spectacularly.  In the end, Ayn Rand's philosophy is simply the other side of the authoritarian coin, replacing one unaccountable dictator over society, with many unaccountable dictators over their own lives.

2.  If the individual is at the center, God must be displaced.
Atlas Shrugged, and Rand's philosophy in general, is extremely hostile toward religion.  Why?  Virtually all religion has this in common: it displaces the individual from the center and puts God(s) there instead.  In other words, the very concept of religion is based upon the premise that you and I are not the culmination of life in this universe, nor its final purpose.  To understand how we came to be, why we are here, and where we are going, human beings must look up, the answer does not lie within ourselves.  These are of course generalizations about religion, how Buddhism fits within this is of course a bit complicated, but the premise holds: religion is hostile to ethical egoism because religion recognizes that individual human beings do not belong at the center.
It is, of course, the Christian understanding that the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob who came in the flesh as Jesus Christ deserves to be at the center, due to both power and holiness that God alone possesses.  What happens when Christianity is led astray by a belief that warps the Gospel and moves individuals back toward the center?  The Prosperity Gospel.  The Prosperity Gospel is a heresy precisely because it elevates the individual, making our health and wealth God's priority, rather than maintaining the age-old understanding of both our Jewish and Christian ancestors in the faith that they were servants in the house of the LORD.  Another more radical example of a Christian-based system that has been warped, in this case beyond recognition, by the removal of God as the center is Mormonism.  The goal of Mormonism is to become god-like, to advance to the point of possessing the power of a god able to create worlds of our own to rule. 

3.  Christianity requires that individuals bow the knee to the authority of God.
Neither an authoritarian dictator, nor a 'rugged individualist' like Rand would be willing to bend their will to obey God.  Both are in rebellion against that higher authority, that one of them seeks to dominate others and the other to 'liberate' them is a difference of degree, not of kind; both extremes place the individual at the center, both reject any obedience to God or any other external moral authority, and both are a dead end.
One cannot be a follower of Jesus Christ without acknowledging, and welcoming, the authority of God over one's life.  This attitude of obedience is infused throughout the teachings of Jesus, summed up in his endorsement of the greatest commandment:
Matthew 22:36-40 (NIV)  36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Notice also that the 2nd commandment is our moral obligation to other people, one that will often come at significant expense to ourselves.)

Jesus also embraced the authority of the Father, even though he too was God, as an example for us all (see Philippians 2:5-11):
John 6:38 (NIV)  For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.

For those of us who live in a free society, and Americans in the 21st century have freedoms our ancestors could scarcely comprehend, it is tempting to elevate ourselves to the position of being the arbiter of right and wrong, the determiner of purpose and meaning.  It is tempting, but it is a fool's errand, for that power and wisdom is beyond us, and pretending to possess it is the path of self-destruction.  The Church can ill afford to be infected with these notions, we have seen the results when it has been compromised in this way, from the support of millions of German Christians for the Nazi regime, to the hucksters on TV promising God's blessings to those who will send them money.  Ayn Rand believed that a truly 'free' society of individuals serving their own self-interests would be a paradise, she was wrong.

Why the Church shouldn't be afraid of the "Nones" - Romans 11:36

Much has been made of the rapid increase here in America (and previously in Europe) of those who consider themselves to be a "none" regarding faith and religion.  While it is certainly true that those who do not consider religion (Christianity in particular) to be worthwhile have been on the rise of late, historically speaking a generation or two does not make a break from all of human history.  Since the beginning of recorded history, mankind has consistently sought after a connection with the divine.  The ways in which this goal has been attempted have varied a great deal, but the need has always been nearly universally felt, throughout the world and across the barriers of culture.  The reason for this is quite simple: We were made this way.  It is a part of our DNA, as it were, a portion of humanity that cannot be quantified by science, but the evidence for which is abundant.  Modernity may have given some people the sense that they no longer have to look to the heavens for the meaning and purpose of life, but science will not and cannot answer these questions, nor can human philosophies nor trivial self-centered pursuits; people will always in the end lift their eyes to the heavens and consider what God requires of them.
Paul wrote about this in his letter to the Romans, describing our relationship to God in poetic form in Romans 11:36, "For from him and through him and to him are all things.  To him be the glory forever!  Amen."  Paul understood that the glory of God and the happiness of mankind are not divergent goals.  It is only when we obtain the spiritual transformation of new life in Christ that we truly understand and experience the purpose for which we exist.

To illustrate this point, in the September 26th 2016 issue of Time magazine, in an essay by Susanna Schrobsdorff, a self-described member of the "none" group, Susanna speaks about her experience with religion, about her mother's loss of faith, and why her mother reached out to God as she was dying.  Reflecting on her mother's return to faith at the end, she writes, "It was a comfort I envied as I watched her slip away...but when she was gone, it felt like a void had opened up.  Then, as now, I long for faith.  That essential human need might just be proof that God does exists...We have innate cravings for food and sleep and love, and so perhaps a desire to identify with a higher power is not an accident of our design...That built-in yearning is there because there's something worth yearning for."

And that is why I'm not afraid that we are about to become a nation of "Nones".  Humanity cannot escape its connection to God, no matter what it may try to put in God's place, no matter how loudly people protest that they don't need God nor believe he exists.  The fact is, he does.  God does exist, he did create you, and me, and he put within us a longing to have a relationship with our maker, a longing that will in the end always gnaw away at those who deny him.  For our part, the Church needs to remain faithful to its proclamation of the Gospel, maintaining the witness of our forefathers on back to the apostles, and continuing to live righteously in an immoral world.  It may not be "If you build it he will come", but the idea is similar, the Gospel will draw people by the power of the Holy Spirit, as long as we continue to lift high the cross of Christ.

Sermon Video: Pride in Humble Circumstances - James 1:9-12

Continuing his discussion on perseverance, James brings the factors of wealth and poverty into the discussion by saying that the poor believer ought to take pride in his "high position" and the rich believer ought to take pride in his "low position".  What makes poverty "high" and wealth "low"?  We know that Jesus warned repeatedly about the dangers of wealth as a hindrance to entrance into the kingdom of God, so that can account for riches being called low, but what elevates poverty?  The simple truth of the fallen nature of humanity is that we turn toward God more readily when we feel a greater dependence upon him for our survival.  The more material things one has, the less likely he/she is to recognize the need for God in his/her life.  There are exceptions, of course, but generally this principle holds true.  The Church has always had far more poor people in it than rich people (of course the world contains far more poor people than rich, but they also believe at a higher rate than the rich do).  If dependence upon God for daily needs leads to acceptance of the Gospel's call for repentance, it is certainly something worth taking pride in.
Those Christians who happen to be rich, while a minority they do exist, can take pride in knowing that their wealth had absolutely nothing to do with their salvation.  They can to God by grace, just like the poorest among us, and they need God just as much.
In the end, rich or poor, high or low, we all need to persevere in our faith.  Whatever the circumstances we must endure, however hard the test, by faith we must stand firm in our commitment to God.  When we do stand, when our faith passes the test, we know that one day we will receive a reward from God.

To watch the video, click on the link below: