Understanding Sacrifice: Insight from Ayn Rand

I'll be the first to admit that I greatly enjoyed Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead . I'd long since heard whispers of their brilliance and read glowing reviews about their being "life-changing" works. I even had an initial attraction to the author just because "Ayn" is such a unique and cool name (though I still think it sounds more like a guy's name). But upon finding out that they were novels written by a female communist escapee, they lost most of their appeal. I generally don't like to read female authors and couldn't imagine an intelligent, philosophical novel, written by a man or woman. The idea that such a thing could be never even occurred to me. Novels were a thing to lose myself in – not learn from. And so the books remained in the back of my mind, but without a strong enough desire to buy them and read them. They existed in that state of mild curiosity for several years until, while perusing a respected friend's bookshelf, I came across The Fountainhead. He had gotten it free, read it, loved it, and was willing to let me borrow it. With these added commendations (free and recommended by someone I respected) I began my forage into Ayn Rand. I began that evening and was useless for the next two days as I plowed pretty much straight through it (even forgoing a powder day on the mountain to sit in bed all day to finish it), and immediately went to the library to check out Atlas Shrugged (which had a long hold-list but I did eventually get it and devoured it in much the same way). All of that to say that I am a fan. A fan of the books at least. Objectivism must be evaluated on a more objective standard than my personal enjoyment, but the books I'd recommend to pretty much any adult who can think critically.

To some degree there's no mystery to their appeal: they're well written, have the common theme of the triumph of "good" over "evil", have heroes one wants to be and villains that embody all one loves to hate, are open about sexuality (heterosexuality that is, I believe she hated homosexuality), view "love" as something great and present it all in the format of the aforementioned intelligent, philosophical novels. And for the starving minds in the world who exist above the level of automaton, they offer a spoon-fed all encompassing philosophy that's intelligent enough to give one the idea of being part of the intelligentsia, without actually having to think critically. I even felt it myself when telling someone that I was reading Atlas Shrugged, as if I had now entered into an elite group of avid readers and great thinkers simply by reading this one book. Granted, that could just be me and my propensity to think myself great no matter what (Though a friend who proofread this for me said that the clerk at Borders told her that she didn't look capable of reading Rand. Not sure if that was because my friend has some appearance of ignorance that I don't know about, is rather young, wears a head covering or some other physical appearance of elitist that my extremely intelligent friend must be lacking. Regardless, it seems that there is some aurora sounding Rand and her books.).

At least for now, I'll not go into a lengthy critique of objectivism, though suffice it to say that, like all forms of empiricism and/or rationalism, it can give no meaning or purpose to anything, has no concept of right and wrong and is pretty much useless for living (which is funny because Rand called it “a philosophy for living on earth”). That is why Rand, who claimed to be so logical, could not carry its premises out to their logical conclusions. Instead she invalidly concluded Christian values from many of her objectivist arguments: which is why parts of her books echo so much with Christianity. Christian values of course are a necessary consequence of Christian beliefs (by definition), but it is only by logical error that an objectivist such as Rand could come to those same conclusions (assuming her premises are contradictory to Christian premises, as Rand asserted).

Depending on your stance and knowledge of Rand, you may find it hard to believe that her objectivism and biblical Christianity could have anything in common, but her popularity among certain Christian circles is evidence for it. But even apart from that circumstantial evidence, the emphasis she placed on hard work and productivity is not called the Objectivist work ethic, but rather the Protestant (or Puritan) work ethic for good reason – it characterized the Christians who came out of the Reformation. Even the laissez faire capitalism and democracy she fled communist Russia to embrace in America, are, I believe, only logically consistent with Christianity (Robbins addresses this in Christ and Civilization). Admittedly, she was a vehement atheist, which makes it all the more ironic that she would embrace the one country most explicitly founded on Christian values and ideals (not that I would call America a "Christian nation", but merely that it is the country most explicitly founded on Christian values and ideals). Indeed, a study of Christianity and Objectivism's common and uncommon presuppositions and ideals would be interesting and certainly broader than I wish to address here, but Rand certainly thought them diametrically opposed. She railed against Christianity in her books, perhaps most pointedly in Atlas Shrugged when John Galt, in his climatic speech, bashes Christianity for the sacrificial life that Christians are called to live. Resolving that difference, and expounding the more clear understanding I now have of sacrifice is the purpose of this post. I believe you will see that it was Rand's ignorance of true Christianity and language in general that is the culprit rather than a failing or inconsistency of Christianity.

I will admit that Galt's argument, though useless (as in he has no means consistent with his empirical philosophy for saying one thing is more valuable than another thing), does seem to fit in with reality. Sacrifice, according to Galt, and therefore Rand, is the giving up of something of greater value for something of lesser value. This is stupid and morally wrong. Christianity calls for it's followers to sacrifice, therefore Christianity is stupid and morally wrong. The argument is valid, and if the premises are true, the conclusion (Christianity is stupid and morally wrong) is necessarily true as well. At face value, it seems like a valid and sound argument. In the midst of reading it, I remember thinking, “Okay, that makes sense. So why isn't Christianity stupid and wrong?” Just taking a trite example, most would agree that sacrificing a one hundred dollar bill to gain a one dollar bill is stupid. Obviously this was Rand's intent, to logically show the implausibility of Christianity by reductio ad absurdum. And I believe she succeeded with many people.

But Rand wasn't alone in this work. The ground had already been tilled by previous "Christian" philosophers and theologians who had taken Christianity out of the realm of the intellect and logical consistency and put it in the realm of "pure faith" and irrationalism. This may have begun with the brilliant, but way off, Soren Kierkegaard (who said, “It was intelligence and nothing else that had to be opposed. Presumably that is why I, who have had the job, was armed with an immense intelligence”) in the early 1800's. Rand simply took it out of the exclusive realm of philosophers, who could somehow live with such blaring contradictions, and gave it to the common thinking man, who could not rationally live irrationally (and rightly so). To these people Rand gave a supposedly logical reason to reject Christianity and allowed them, with a clear conscience, to safely put it in the category of fantasy and children's stories. Christianity, at least in America, has never fully recovered. It is still regarded by many as childish and totally unconcerned with logical consistency.

But the question still remains, “Why isn't Christianity stupid and wrong?” After all, Rand's understanding of sacrifice seems to make sense. I would certainly call someone at best stupid who gave up one hundred dollars to get one dollar. And sacrifice is without a doubt an integral part of Christianity. Isn't it a religion in which one is continually bringing oneself to a lower and lower standing so that in the end, he or she may be lowest of all? Don't passages like “the first shall last and the last shall be first” and “whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant” support this view? So then, how can I, who takes great effort to live logically and consistently, still believe Christianity is true? As I admitted above, the argument is valid. If the premises are true, the conclusion is necessarily true as well. But therein lies the error. Rand's first premise, her definition of sacrifice and its stupidity and moral wrongness, is not only foreign to Christianity, but is foreign to the general understanding of the word. Among the several listings found for "sacrifice" at merriam-webster.com, the most general is “something given up or lost”. It in no way implies anything concerning the value of the items sacrificed or gained, nor do any of the other definitions make such an implication. Now Rand's first premise (sacrifice is stupid and morally wrong), understood with a correct definition of sacrifice, is not generally accepted as true (unless one is willing to admit that all forms of loss and giving up, even trade, gifts and buying are stupid and morally wrong).

Some may persist that while Merriam-Webster doesn't necessarily see sacrifice as the giving up of something of greater value for something of lesser value,the Bible and Christianity do hold that view. Certainly on other issues, biblical definitions are not always in line with Merriam-Webster's definitions, and this, they may assert, is such an issue. The aforementioned passages may again be appealed to in support of their view. But even in these passages supposedly supporting Rand's view we find the biblical definition of sacrifice to be the complete opposite of what she said. In both of the passages Jesus is telling His disciples how to be first and great. He is not advising his disciples to be last and least, but that by being last and least here (on earth), they may be first and great there (in heaven). These teachings fit in perfectly with the rest of scripture, particularly Matthew 6 where Christ commands the storing up of heavenly treasures rather than earthly treasures precisely because heavenly treasures are indestructible and therefore superior to temporal earthly treasures. In chapter 19 of the same book, He encourages His disciples who have left all and followed Him by saying that the return will be a hundredfold. This is encouragement precisely because the return is a hundredfold the investment – they'll gain much more than they've given. It's clear that true Christianity, rather than the straw man Rand portrays it as, holds the exact opposite view of sacrifice that she attributes to it. She says Christians are called to give away valuable things for less valuable things when the calling is actually to give away what is worthless (earthly goods and services) for what is infinitely valuable (heavenly riches and rule). Here again is an irony of Rand: her idea of righteous selfishness is predated by Christianity's concern for the individual and a righteous desire for one's own well-being by nearly two thousand years. Of course, as an empiricist/materialist, she didn't believe in a heaven and spiritual rewards, but critiquing a system of thought based on suppositions of another system of thought is a worthless endeavor. The Christian does believe in a heaven and spiritual rewards, therefore his or her actions of sacrifice are entirely consistent with his or her system of belief. Either Rand was dishonest in intentionally presenting a straw man that she could easily destroy or she was genuinely ignorant of basic Christian beliefs. Of course that's no surprise since Paul wrote in the book of Romans that men will “suppress the truth in unrighteousness”. But whether intentionally or ignorantly, Rand, at least on this point of her criticism of Christianity, was entirely incorrect. In fact, her objectivism was merely following in the footsteps of Christianity, though lacking the necessary preconditions to arrive at such conclusions and any consistent means of determining greater and lesser valuable things.

It may seem odd that my title would include the term 'Insight', when thus far I have sought, and I believe succeeded, to show that Rand's argument against Christianity (at least this one based on sacrifice) was fallacious. Perhaps it would have been more accurate to call it “Understanding Sacrifice: Insight From Ayn Rand's Errors”, but whether stated or not, I do believe we as Christians, and even non-Christians, can learn from Rand's mistake. I confess that her argument seemed so plausible to me at first because I had, unintentionally and unknowingly, begun to view sacrifice in her terms. I had begun to think of the Christian life in terms of what I had to give up or deny myself (sex, freedom, money, new camera lenses, etc.), rather than in terms of what I received (forgiveness, freedom from sin, meaning, Christ and ultimately God). I believe this view is rampant in the church and plaguing it. But the world will not be won for Christ by those who view the Christian life as an investment destined to depreciate. Nor will people be drawn to a Christ who takes more from them than He gives. Let us remember that Christ is the pearl of great price and yes, we must sacrifice everything to get Him, but, oh, what a steal it is! What a bargain we get! We give all of nothing to get the one thing that is real. Those who have been transformed by that truth are the ones who will change the world. Theirs is the philosophy of not only “living on earth”, but living in eternity.



In hindsight, as philosophical novels, categorically the book Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead most closely resemble may be the Bible, which would explain their wide appeal and the devotion they inspire. I believe the market is wide open for someone to put forth an intelligent, philosophical Christian novel. If Rand could put forth a false philosophy of objectivism in novel form and lure in millions, it seems probable that someone could put forth a true Christian philosophy (destroying objectivism, empiricism, rationalism, relativism, evolutionism, atheism and a host of other 'isms' in the process) and have success. Granted, the Bible does all that and more and is written by One who cannot lie or make mistakes, but I think a contemporary Christian philosophical work of fiction is at least permissible and perhaps a very worthy endeavor. The situation as it is right now is such that most, myself included, are too ignorant to read and understand a philosophical treatise, but could manage to follow a novel precisely because of the nature of a novel – that of storytelling, it's slowness in developing, less abstraction, practical examples, etc. Whether I have the necessary skills to do so is doubtful, but I believe that has become my life's ambition. That and bouldering V10. Ah, what lofty goals I've set for myself.