Objectivism and Christianity: Compatible?

This goes under “politics,” until I have enough for a “philosophy” section, I suppose.

It has recently come to my attention via a friend of mine that “Objectivism and Christianity are incompatible.” While it is true that Ayn Rand was an athiest and rejected “mysticism,” and would probably hate me for even trying to reconcile Christianity and Objectivism, I feel that this is the one place where her pure philosophy falls short.

Rand hated mysticism and the bending-of-knee, and believed Man should be proud of his accomplishments, and not defer them to some all-powerful being. However, I get the feeling from Atlas Shrugged that much of this is based on Rand’s own incapability or non-desire to be a follower of Christ, and sadly not based on the Reason which she holds so dear.

There are a few points of obvious contention that I wish to address beyond Rand’s personal beefs with religion that come up. One is the issue of sacrifice. During Galt’s speech, he says of sacrifice:

If you exchange a penny for a dollar, it is not a sacrifice; if you exchange a dollar for a penny, it is.

He says a lot more, but it comes down to that very concrete analogy. So then, what of the “Divine Sacrifice” of Jesus on the cross? The problem here is not Objectivism, which is correct, nor is it Christianity, which is also correct, but it is in the name “Divine Sacrifice.” The cross was not a sacrifice! It was a trade: Jesus’s mortal life for our immortal souls. Something of lesser value for something of greater value. Dare I put so much emphasis on the value of our soul to the Lord? But He even said it, in the oft-quoted John 3:16 (NASB):

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

What this means is that to the Lord, the giving of Christ on the cross was most certainly not a sacrifice in the proper meaning of the term. God loves you. And that is the very point of what Christ did.

OK, so what of Original Sin? Galt has this to say:

A sin without volition is a slap at morality and an insolent contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality. If man is evil by birth, he has no will, no power to change it; if he has no will, he can be neither good nor evil; a robot is amoral. To hold, as man’s sin, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of morality. To hold man’s nature as his sin is a mockery of nature. To punish him for a crime he committed before he was born is a mockery of justice. To hold him guilty in a matter where no innocence exists is a mockery of reason. To destroy morality, nature, justice and reason by means of a single concept is a feat of evil hardly to be matched. Yet that is the root of your code.

Surely, we are punished for Adam’s sin in Eden, but this punishment is washed clean with baptism. So Christians are not punished for this sin, but that is not the point. And maybe it’s best here to agree to disagree. Because Original Sin does not affect the way in which a Christian leads his life any more than it affects an Athiest, beyond baptism. But this isn’t the point that Ayn Rand is trying to make. The point that Rand is trying to make is that Man is not inherently evil, as some would interpret Original Sin (including her) to imply. But this is not what Original Sin implies; it implies that Man is inherently unclean, and without repentance cannot enter the kingdom of God.

The real, underlying argument being made is that man is inherently selfish, and that being selfish is not being evil. But what of this? Christianity calls for us to be poor and follow Christ right? Christ said (Matthew 19:24, NASB):

Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

This is a complicated verse. For one thing, many theologians do not believe that Jesus meant a sewing needle, implying that it was impossible for a rich man to enter Heaven. In fact this makes little sense, especially since King David was a king. Some believe this means “spiritually poor,” but that’s not the whole picture. Many theologians believe Jesus was talking about a gate in Jerusalem called the “Eye of the Needle,” which had a low entrance. In order for a camel to pass through it, the camel would have to unload all of its baggage, and cross through on its knees.

This is not the only place that the Bible seems to disparage on the “selfishness” of Capitalism. There is also this passage (Mark 10:17-22):

As He was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to Him and knelt before Him, and asked Him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone. “You know the commandments, ‘DO NOT MURDER, DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, DO NOT STEAL, DO NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS, Do not defraud, HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER.’” And he said to Him, “Teacher, I have kept all these things from my youth up.” Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him and said to him, “One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” But at these words he was saddened, and he went away grieving, for he was one who owned much property.

To properly interpret this passage, one must realize two things. The first is that when commanded, one must obey. This is Jesus, in the flesh telling this man to follow Him. The most important part here is that the man was more attached to his property than to his love of Jesus. This is his main folly.

Secondly, he is a man of wealth in ancient Rome. While there are merchants, this is unlikely as merchants were a very small class. Those who were wealthy in ancient times gained their wealth by stealing from the producers through taxes, or by working for the government. These people are called ‘looters and moochers,’ by Ayn Rand. These people were not honest, and neither was anything they owned produced by their own hand. The producers labored and slaved for the sake of the privileged few who were hand-picked by no one.

This does not mean that every rich man was unjust, just look at David. Nor does it mean that every poor man was just, however the two were much more related in this aristocracy than they are in our meritocracy.

Through Capitalism, we understand that by striving to produce a life for ourselves, we drive an economy that will make life better for everyone, even those who do not adhere to our system. Looking to history, we can see evidence of this, amongst other places, during the Cold War when the US sent wheat to the USSR who were having a famine, because their oligarchy could not produce enough food, while our republic was producing a surplus.

Objectivism is compatible with Christianity, if Christianity is studied properly. Objectivism teaches the virtue of making oneself happy, and that in doing so one will make the lives of those around oneself better. Christianity teaches the virtue of making your neighbor’s life better, but doesn’t speak of the ‘how.’ The issues of sacrifice and Original Sin are issues of misnomer, and that of wealth isn’t an issue of the wealth itself, but instead the method of getting wealth. Are you stealing the wealth at the tip of a sword or the muzzle of a gun? Or are you earning it? What Rand failed to realize is that while Reason is Man’s best attribute, that which separates him from the animal, she doesn’t realize that Reason is a gift from God, His greatest gift.

To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason—Purpose—Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge—Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve—Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living. -John Galt

Please note that all of the John Galt quotes can be found on the Ayn Rand lexicon and also in Atlas Shrugged as well as in For the New Intellectual by Ayn Rand.