Atlas Flubbed

For my birthday, I received Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged in audio book form, brilliantly read by Edward Herrmann. I just realized this is an abridged edition (I wondered how one could read an 1100-page book in 11 hours), but the plot is so intricate I can't imagine what details might be been omitted.

So far I have found the story incredibly fascinating and far more thrilling than I imagined a treatise on libertarian capitalism could be. The book is regarded as the second most influential book in America, next to the Bible. An interesting fact, given that Rand set herself in direct opposition to Biblical teaching in the portion I listened to this morning.

In a lengthy speech by the book's central character (No spoilers for now - I'll save those for a more complete review later), Rand presents her Objectivist manifesto. Without going into detail, some core premises of her philosophy/religion are:

- Self-interest is the greatest good.
- Self-sacrifice is at best a waste and at worst evil.
- Humans are born with no evil inclinations or "original sin."

When she denounced the existence of "original sin," the first question in my head was, "Did Rand have any children?" (The answer is no: "The only children she wanted was her books.") If you put two babies in a room with a hammer, how long do you think it will be before one is clubbing the other in the head with it?

As the speech went on, I was struck by how badly Rand misunderstood Christianity. Objectivism regards individual productivity as the highest ethic. Christianity's emphasis on mercy and generosity are antithetical, engendering laziness. Somehow, Rand missed the Bible's overwhelming denunciations of slothfulness, particularly Paul's declaration: "If anyone isn't willing to work, he should not eat." Rand would counter that Christianity advocates working for the common good, leading to socialism.

I found that Rand challenged one of my favorite Christian authors, C.S. Lewis, in her critique of The Abolotion of Man. Rand's comments were published posthumously in a book titled Ayn Rand's Marginalia. From the reviews of this book at Amazon.com, it seems Rand makes a habit of misreading other philosophers. One reviewer, Steve Jackson, writes:

Even worse is Rand's misunderstanding of C.S. Lewis's work THE ABOLITION OF MAN. Lewis makes the point that planners use the power they have gained from science to dominate man. He concludes that any power won by man is also a power over man. Rand goes bonkers and comments "So when you cure men of . . . [diseases] - you make them weaker!!!" Uh, that wasn't exactly his point. She even accuses Lewis (an Anglican) of wanting science subservient to the Pope!

I hoped Lewis might have critiqued Rand's writings at some point, but I have found no such critique. (If anyone knows of one, I would love to read it.)

I have to state that I am unapologetically capitalist. The reason Atlas Shrugged is so compelling to me so far is that I believe industry and innovation are virtues to be promoted and rewarded, not taxed and regulated. Wealth is an incentive to productivity and is not to be discouraged or redistributed by government. I agree with Fr. Robert Sirico that a free market is the best system under which humans can exercise their divinely-bestowed drive to create. In this sense, Christianity and capitalism are complementary philosophies.

Rand lauds the United States for being the first society in history to use the expression, "to make money," that is, that wealth is not to be acquired by force or by looting, but that it is produced by the work of men's minds. What Rand seems to miss is that the right of individuals to be free to receive the fruits of their labors is a Divine right, given not by the government nor by other men. If there is no God, there is no freedom because there is no one else objectively qualified to bestow rights. This is in the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence. Democracy and free markets cannot exist without a Creator.

What is sad to me is that I find so much in Rand's philosophy to agree with, but she sets herself at odds with Christians like Sirico or Lewis because of her preconceptions and prejudices about Christianity. I question whether she would allow them to agree with her.

As I say this, I know that I am an intellectual pipsqueak who could not hold my own in a debate with Ayn Rand or her successors, but I would have given money to see her debate C.S. Lewis or some of the other Christian champions of liberty and reason.

I'll be finishing Rand's book within the week, after which I am looking forward to hearing Fr. Sirico's, "Who Was Ayn Rand?" I'll hope to blog about it later.

Abstract Gospel

I have been planning for some time to see End of the Spear but have not yet had the opportunity. My wife recently purchased the DVD of the 2004 film, Beyond Gates of Splendor, which we also have not yet watched. Both films are about the martyrdom of Jim Elliot and Nate Saint at the hands of Waodani tribesmen they set out to minister to.

I looked for a comparative review of these two films and ran across this blogger's remarks:

http://doxoblogy.blogspot.com/2006/01/end-of-spear-my-perspective.html

First of all, the main difference between the films is that “Gates” is a documentary where “Spear” is a story.

Beyond that, the blogger, Jeremey Weaver, is very critical of "Spear," taking issue primarily with the absence of literal Gospel teaching in the film. Weaver claims that this makes the movie historically inaccurate. (He recommends “Gates” instead.) Weaver reveals, though, that he did not even see the film, by choice. One respondent, “Sally Apokedak,” challenged his complaints about the film, and her points set several thoughts in my mind. The gist of her comments are that ministering the Gospel does not always mean quoting the Gospel. You can’t go to a tribe of primitive people and throw Scripture at them, expecting the words to work their magic on souls immersed in barbarism. It occurred to me that this is a problem I have with Biblical fundamentalism: the belief that quoting Scripture is in itself evangelism. Charismatic fundamentalists believe that the Holy Spirit will speak through the words and, some argue, we can not and should not try to do more.

I believe in the power and authority of Scripture and its ability to bring conviction to unbelievers and hope and strength to believers. But the Bible is a vehicle built of words. The essence of the Gospel transcends words. Where language is the biggest barrier, the most effective language becomes deeds, in this case unrelenting compassion and forgiveness. When reaching out to a hostile audience (whether American moviegovers or Amazonian savages), the Gospel in deed pierces where words are blunt instruments. After reading Weaver's critique, I’m even more interested in seeing End of the Spear because it may be that the movie portrays this.

I look forward to seeing "Spear" as part of our Lenten observance this year.