by Tom Pratt
With reference to the second consideration above, Rand’s selfishness is not incompatible with biblical ideas of man in the image of God held accountable on an individual basis for his good and evil choices and/or his failure to gain knowledge of the right and/or wise action. Scripture is clear that regardless of the collective to which one belongs, personal accountability is fundamental to man’s existence on this earth and for eternity beyond. He is expected to practice the law of God to “live” (Lev. 18:5), choose “life” and not death (Dt. 30:19), refuse to follow “the many” to do evil or go to court with them to pervert good into evil (Ex. 23:2),[39] and exercise individual courage in the face of even overwhelming opposition (Num. 14:36, 37). This last incident is the classic parallel to Rand’s heroic characters in their struggle against those who constantly carp about how selfish it is for them to think they could be right when everyone is opposed to them. On the other hand the Old Testament teaches one must love the neighbor and also the “stranger” among the people (Lev. 19:18, 34).
Many, of course, in Christian circles contend that the ethic of Jesus in this area is superior to the Old Testament. They cite his own example as the one who gave his life “for others” and taught his disciples to do likewise. Specifically, among other similar passages, it can be noted that God “gave” His Son (Jn. 3:16), He walked among men as a “servant” (Jn. 13:14-17) and bid his followers do the same, He died for those he loved (Gal. 2:20), He told them to “deny” themselves daily (Lk. 9:23) and “take up the Cross” lest one “lose himself” (v. 25, ESV), and His own Apostles taught the churches to “love one another” and give attention to the things of others as they do to themselves (Phil. 2:4). We would not contend there is anything amiss in asserting that both testaments of the Christian Scriptures encourage concern and action on behalf of others besides oneself.
On the other hand, the last book of the Bible exhorts the churches in chapters 2 and 3 to repent of behaviors and beliefs that are un-Christian and promises eternal rewards to individuals who join Jesus Christ in “overcoming.”[40] The presumption here must be that even in the church community individual accountability trumps the collective responsibility. The New Testament, perhaps even more than the Old Testament, emphasizes the necessity of individual choice and action regardless of collective issues. Jesus says with reference to family and friends that He must have the primary position of loyalty (Mt. 10:31-39), even to the point of separation and death as an individual from this nearest form of collective life. One cannot give Caesar what belongs to God (Mt. 22:21). Repentance and faith for salvation are always individual and personal and cannot be done one for another (Acts 2:38). Most important of all is the clear evidence that Jesus himself was not an altruist. He did not “live for others.” He lived and died to fulfill a destiny set from eternity (Heb. 12:2) that included his own “joy” at the prospect of what He was doing. This is the “joy” he sought for His own followers (Jn. 15:11; 16:24; 17:23). Fundamental to His life and death was that it was all done to please His Father (Jn. 8:28, 29; 10:15-18). He sought to “please” one “other” Who gave Him the agenda for action and decision and timing and gave Him the ones who were hearing and receiving His teaching. In our context here, this is the equivalent of a value system that guides a rational process, regardless of whether we posit God as the referent or that which reason can ferret out and understand. Obviously we would say that Rand and Galt need to check their premises, but that does not force them into altruism.
Altruism by its very nature would have changed Jesus’ agenda while He was on this earth. The crowds seemed like “sheep without a shepherd” (Mt. 9:36) who at one point complained of the ministry of John and then of the ministry of Jesus (Mt. 11:16-19). Jesus felt compassion for them and healed and fed them, but His own enlightened understanding of them and the mission He had from the Father made Him “selfish” in the Randian way—He must do the will of the Father. The crowds ate bread and were filled and sought to force Him into a kingship, and the next day came looking for the soup kitchen, and when He refused to play that role for them, they left Him flat (Jn. 6:15, 26, 27, 66). The Gospels record His repeated challenges to the crowds to take up the cross and follow, to which they responded negatively. His relationship with the national leadership was like that portrayed in Atlas Shrugged. Finally, they hailed Him on Sunday and called for His crucifixion on Friday. He went about His business (Jn. 10:18) as an other-directed Son of the Father. This is not altruism. It is what Paul saw and described as the process of justification (Rom. 3:21-26), a transaction that remains mysterious even as we applaud it. It is much closer to Galt’s understanding of “trading” than it is to any altruistic “living for others.” Jesus did not die willy-nilly for an example to follow of selfless and unconditional loving of “others.” He died in purposeful fulfillment of an eternal plan that would without fail bring “many” to salvation and glory and restore ultimately the created order. Whatever else we call this, it must be called a rational construct that makes sense within the context of the narrative of Scripture. It makes the universe far more “benevolent” than Rand imagined in her world, but it does not encourage faith in altruistic collectivism of any kind. That does not work in either reality.
There nevertheless remains an ongoing residual of “compassionate” feeling that is the legacy of Christian concern for other people that condemns outright the “egoism” and “selfishness” of John Galt. Rand consistently in her public presentations and written creations made her language on the subject sharp and transparent. She never backs down and permits no “compromise.” Of course, her life bore the scars of Soviet harshness and she was an unabashed believer in the hope that was America. When she saw that the hope was itself sick and on a course that she felt would lead to the death of an idea that could save mankind from untold misery, she engaged in unparalleled polemic to get a hearing. We use “unparalleled” advisedly, for nothing like this has appeared before or since. Yet it continues to excite interest and draw shocked invective. The arguments above appear to us as very straightforward and leave us only with the softer criticisms.
Social and familial relationships appear to some to be lacking or severely truncated in Rand’s view of “life” as she calls it. How do “selfish” people love one another and form families and communities? How can “traders” relate to “traders” as living beings with emotions and desires? For Rand these relationships should always reflect the same rational considerations that economic and workplace trade-offs do. Love may seem to be an irrational longing and need for the other and clearly outside the box of rational explanation. But Rand would say that the failure to control these “feelings” within the bounds of reason is a part of the “wrong with the world” situation. Men and women enter into sexual unions without thought and evaluation based on their highest aspirations. This leads to marriages like the Reardens and James Taggart and liaisons like Taggart and Lillian Rearden. On the other hand, Dagny Taggart (the stand-in for Rand herself) is torn between three loves that begin in childhood with Francisco d’Anconia, proceed to Hank Rearden in the middle of Atlas, and finally arrive at permanence (we presume) in John Galt. This process is somewhat reflective of Rand’s own disappointments in love and marriage.
It is not a “happy” picture, and Rand herself admitted that in cases such as this one should prepare to be “judged,” apparently implying that consequences would follow and one must face up to them. In other words sex and marriage are a work in progress even as “climbing the ledge” Galt mentions at the end of his speech. It is a matter of aspiration in this area even more than it is in others. What each of these men in Dagny’s life exhibits, however, is the ability to know the difference between need and pity and love. One cannot have a permanent relationship based on the first two, which lead to fake relationships and real dysfunctionality. Love, on the other hand, is two people bringing together their highest aspirations in agreement and consummating that relationship sexually in a way that does not divorce one si
de of the relationship from the other—that is, the physical from the spiritual. This is a higher ethic than serial sexual relationships or serial marriage, but it is clearly not the biblical idea of covenant. Rand would not sanction mere physical coupling and not all “spiritual” (her use means “rational”) fellowship between the sexes demand sexual union (!), but Dagny is seeking something she does not find till she meets Galt. This is an inadequate societal building block and a clearly sub-Christian ideal.
Ragnar Danneskjold and Kay Ludlow are another case altogether. They appear to have found this perfect union of mind and body and have joined for life. The woman who runs the bakery shop and is rearing two children in Galt’s Gulch appears to have the same relationship with her husband. Bill Brent in the episode at the tunnel is another who has built a strong marriage and family while living the life of individual struggle. Galt himself has a high view of what the relationship with a woman should be when he simply remarks to Dagny that some in the valley have wives and children and their relationship is of a kind (in trade-offs) that he could not possibly claim from her. The book, of course, cannot cover all ground, and it is lacking in further grist for this particular mill. But it might be helpful to relate a personal story here. I (Tom) read Atlas in 1965 and was captivated by so much about it that as a young college student and pastor and avid reader of the Bible I was greatly influenced by its thinking. I was particularly swayed in the area of possible choices to be made for a life partner, should the opportunity ever come up. In younger experience I had experienced the waves of desire in the body and the torrents of passionate emotion in what Americans call “falling in love.” Having barely “escaped” from these temporary but serious infatuations, I made a vow to God that I would never allow myself to become so enamored with the other sex again unless there was a clear compatibility with the goals and aspirations of my life in the other person. When I met my wife-to-be about a year after that, I had read Atlas and was reading it again. Along with two other books (both on the life of Jim Elliot) I gave it to Karen and told her to read them and we would talk, and I let her know how important they were in my thinking. In the ensuing days I tried to make it plain that our relationship, if it was to proceed, would have to be based on agreement about what our life would be about and how it might develop. No faking. No compromising. No marry the other party and hope for change. Either we are in agreement from the beginning or there is no reason to proceed. My goal was to make a lifelong commitment that, no matter what happened, would not require me to apologize for where our life went because I fooled her into marrying me or vice versa. Forty-six years later we are still married. And it has been every bit of the road we agreed to and probably worse!
I regard this as the Christian version of what Rand aspires to. It is a repudiation of the “falling in love” syndrome sold like candy-corn across America and the world and that has been syncretized into the fabric of the churches, baptized as some form of Christian love. It is the reason, as we see it that divorce is as rampant among “Evangelicals” as it is in the general population. The outcry against the “trader” mentality espoused by Galt/Rand, even in the area of sexuality, is badly overdone. As pastors we (Chad and Tom) have had our bellies full of counseling people who married with ulterior motives, who feed one another’s “needs” in mutual enablement, who use sexuality as a weapon and a tool, who “fall in love” and out of love serially and move on again and again, and a host of other aberrations that are far worse than making clear what is being brought to marriage by each partner to see if there is any real compatibility and hope for covenant-keeping. People can do worse than listen to John Galt on this subject.
Finally, a word on simple friendship and community. It is clear that the “selfishness” in Atlas does not hinder either of these. On the contrary, it enhances and solidifies them. True friendship does not exist in a vacuum any more that a good marriage does. Community cannot be forced upon a group by fiat. If one’s highest values are not mirrored in others, there is little hope for companionable and accountable friendship and there is no hope for “community” among apparently disparate individuals. Atlas Shrugged advocates for community (see above in the previous chapter) and friendship based on the common denominator of aspiration to attainment of valued goals and the admiration and respect built around the struggle at every level. It is not necessary to have a Galt-like super-hero leading the charge, only those who find in him an inspiration to seek their own highest level of achievement in life. Among those who are committed to that kind of “selfishness” there is already community and friendship that is only enhanced by the additions of age, gender, craft, workplace, church affiliation, and other accoutrements that make the journey and struggle easier. This is precisely the kind of “community” envisioned in the church of the New Testament. People are pulled together by aspiration to follow Christ. He has called them and they follow Him in togetherness. It is not their social condition, age, ethnicity, outside friendship or craft, or any other thing that makes them a community. It is agreement that all follow Christ to the death as their highest goal in life. They do not live for others, they live for Christ. He is the “head” of everything. Paul even calls this kind of binding in sacrifice to Christ a “rational” service of worship (Rom. 12:1, 2). Jesus himself formed this very community when he was apprised of the arrival of his (then) unbelieving family to take him away from his “selfish” ministry. His reply will seal the deal:
[31] And his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him. [32] And a crowd was sitting around him, and they said to him, “Your mother and your brothers are outside, seeking you.” [33] And he answered them, “Who are my mother and my brothers?” [34] And looking about at those who sat around him, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! [35] For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother.” (Mk. 3:31-34)
Perhaps the most poignant demonstration of this kind of family kinship can be seen in the stark difference between the relationship Hank Rearden has with Tony, the Wet Nurse, and his own brother Philip. Tony earned the respect and love of a man who would not let his own brother near his mills because he was a parasite and malingerer. The two are like the sons in Jesus’ parable of the two sons commanded to do their duty for their father. The one said no and repented, and the other said yes and disobeyed (Mt. 21:28-32). Jesus called this an issue of eternal significance. Christians in America and around the world could also do much worse than listening to John Galt talk about the importance of obeying one’s individual perception of who their true family and friends are. Galt’s criteria agrees with Jesus about the necessity of making one’s highest value—in this case following Christ in doing the will of the Father--the priority when determining relationships, not some perceived collective idea of obligation and neediness.
Chapter 12 - God & Mammon
Galt’s invitation to await the time when the men of the mind will return, when the looters have put down their guns, contains the promise that men and women of reason will be allowed to trade value for value without interference under the societal sign of the dollar. This sign has appeared in Galt’s Gulch and imprinted on the paper of cigarettes and scrawled on the statue of Nat Taggart as a signal from Dagny. It highlights a theme that is once again expressive of Rand’s fierce commitment to capitalism and in-your-face style of contrasting collectivism and its aristocracy of pull with the society of traders. She has made it clear that money is a medium for exchanging values and is degraded when it is thought of as the “root of all evil,” as the antagonists of the plot call it. She is not content simply to point out that her opponents use money hypocritically even as they denounce its importance, for they use it to buy influence (pull) and “friendship” and even marriage alliances, and are as dependent upon it for survival as the alleged “selfish” industrialists and businessmen. Rand seeks consciously to knock down a supposed religious evaluation of money, which she believed was part of a systematic ensl
avement of the mind of man to mystical categories as opposed to reason.
Christians are rightly wary of this characterization of one of the warnings in Scripture. It is seen in the warnings to all those who prosper materially on earth or who would aspire to wealth out of their apparent poverty. Generally it takes the theme that wealth diverts man’s attention from God and becomes a god. Perhaps the two most famous sayings are the one from Jesus: “You cannot serve God and mammon” (Mt. 6:24), and the one from Paul: “The love of money is a root of all kinds of evils” (1 Tim. 6:10 ESV). Francisco, we have seen, takes this last warning in the simple common vernacular, first, “Money is the root of all evil,” and then the additional, supposedly corrective, “The love of money is the root of all evil,” and debunks them in his speech. He does so by showing that in the first case there is a failure to understand what the actual nature of money is, and in the second case he flatly states that love of money is a virtue to the person understanding his first proposition and the nature of love. When one understands love, one sees that money is that which frees mankind from the tyranny of collectivism by giving each and every person a means of trading that which has value to oneself for that which has value to another. This is a principle to actually love and preserve, for it allows the accumulation and spread of “wealth” without fraud and coercion, and facilitates the ability of each person to concentrate on that which has true value as “wealth” to oneself.
In practical living it means that those like Paul, who worked as a leather crafter, could go about the Mediterranean world taking care of himself and his companions by selling his work and his goods for the money that provided the means of survival. Money eliminated the barter process and left him free to preach the Gospel without being beholden to patrons and the chance offerings of those who heard him on the streets or in the squares or other public forums, such as Mars Hill in Athens. In this sense one should “love” money for its ability to convert values of one party, those who sought Paul’s wares and leather services, to the values of the other party, being enabled to preach the Gospel. The system of money allows one to be free without the interference of a patron, the Roman world’s master of pull, or even the time consuming barter market. Rand and d’Anconia elevate this to the level of philosophical principle that is compatible with a Christian understanding of money. Jesus worked as a tekton[41] for his earthly father, and likely on his own after Joseph’s death. He very likely supported his own family until led out in his public ministry by the Holy Spirit. Jesus and Paul have no problem at the point of understanding how money facilitates trading and exchange in honest dealing and the admiration of it in operation that can be called “love” when considering how it has benefited mankind in the widespread creation of wealth available to the largest percentage of world population in history.[42]
