Ayn Rand and Christianity: Glazing Chicken, Not Sausage-Making

Clearly not all Christian thought is in line with Randian thought- however its possible there are ideas that A.) Rand would sympathize with and B.) that Christians can sympathize without being heretics. In fact, its perfectly reasonable for Christians to appreciate free markets, dislike government intervention, and find value in individual decision making while simultaneously loving God and loving thy neighbor.

There is obvious tension between Randian and Christian thought, but there also seems to be a fair amount of overlap to this Venn diagram. Sure, Freeman can cherry pick Rand quotes and they sound bad, but agreeing with the whole body of Rand's work is unnecessary to find sympathy for Rand's ideas on markets and individual choice. I do agree with Freeman that "right-leaning Christians blend Rand's anti-government, pro-business, and individualistic worldview with their Christianity" and the results do not always make sense i.e. sausage. But this does not necessarily need to be the result-- instead of sausage, I think of chicken that's been covered in a glaze. The chicken defines the dish (fried chicken is most definitely chicken but sausage can be chicken, beef and/or pork) but the glaze is that aspect that may vary widely while the dish may continue to be chicken. But Christians must be careful- their Christianity should drive their whole self including one's opinion on economics, culture, politics and other areas of life. The glaze must not overtake the chicken.

A. The Touching Points

Several Randian ethics are inherently un-Christian - atheism, selfishness, materialism, individual autonomy as a preeminent value- but other ideas can be held by both the Christian and Randian without being in conflict. Christianity can have overlapping ideas with almost any other philosophy- Hinduism, Buddhism, Marxism, or any other -ism - and an individual can agree with these characteristics without accepting the whole of that alternative -ism. Another religion or philosophy may value love, service, kindness, charity while it's other aspects might completely differ with Christianity.

B. A Few Thoughts

1. Reason- Christians do not worship the individual's reason/rationale and Christianity is not based on reason or rationale but instead on "revelation" (which has rational and irrational aspects). It would seem that any system of thought would require reliance on an individual's rationality and not their irrationality. Many aspects and stories of Christianity are irrational/paradoxical- selflessness, servant leadership, dying to have life- but this does not mean irrationality is a component of Christianity. Between the two, a Christian would seemingly utilize rationale/reason and in fact, Christian apologetics is used as an appeal to the non-believer's reason to move them towards Christianity. I am not saying Christian apologetics are God-ordained, but it is a mainstream tool to convert the non-believer.

2. The Individual- Christians do not worship the individual but individuals are important to a proper understanding of Christianity. It is reasonable to assume the Christian would favor individual choice over collective choice because individuals are responsible for their actions and decisions, and we will be judged as individuals, not as part of any group. Individual choice within a world of scarcity allows persons to made decisions and reap the consequences- in my opinion, it is a good way to organize markets. Absolutizing the individual (as Rand does) should be seen as improper by the Christian because it displaces God as the preeminent value, but it is no more wrong than absolutizing material/stuff/wealth (materialism), society as a group, capital, etc.

3. Government Intervention- Disfavoring government intervention in the markets while favoring free markets to meet the needs of the poor are not antithetical ideas to the Christian obligation of giving cheerfully and generously. The author of the Christianity Today article seems to equate a government's giving of tax dollars as similar to charitable, chosen and willfull giving. This is a replacement by government of the church's function which, for the Christian, should be seen as a dangerous precedent. It is also problematic to the recipient of said charity. In a situation where a giver is sharing or giving out of kindness/love to the poor and outcast, the giver and the recipient obtain a measure of value from the simple act of giving. The author misplaces this idea, and seems to think the only value is in getting money in the hands of the poor. When the means are unimportant because the end is justified, legalized theft (aka redistributing income) is not only seen as acceptable, but is encouraged by the indiscriminate Christian.

Please let me know your thoughts.