Ayn Rand vs. Jesus of Nazareth

It's getting hard to remember now (soon I will step one year closer to "late twenties" -- ugh), but I was once young.  Once, back then, I read Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand.  I didn't read it because it was supposed to be extremely important to political and economic philosophy, and I certainly didn't read it to expose myself to its ubiquitous references to Rand's Objectivism. 

I read it because, like most things I did back then, my friend Brett recommended it.  That, and the art on the cover was ballin':

Seriously, that is some simple, elegant cover art.

Anyway, the book drew me in with its awesome characters.  In the years and books since, I've only come across a couple characters I've liked more than Atlas's Francisco d'Anconia or Ragnar Danneskjöld.  The former is a brilliant industrialist pretending to be a brainless playboy (sort of like Bruce Wayne in Batman Begins), and the latter is a pirate.  Yeah, a pirate.

Anyway, while the book is packed with Objectivism, Rand's personal philosphy of "rational self-interest," I mainly just wanted to see what would happen to the characters, and figure out who the heck John Galt was.  But later I would take more of an interest in ethics and morality and would realize the significance of Rand's thoughts.

And, from a Christian perspective, some of Rand's quotations about these topics can seem... well, literally the exact opposite of the Christian perspective.

Objectivism

Objectivism, or at least my understanding of it, rests entirely on the assertion that in every area of life, people should pursue their self-interest.  In determining what is, in fact, in their best interest, they should trust their rationality alone.  And thus, articles on this school of thought are always throwing around "rational self-interest."

In politics, Objectivism calls for an extremely small government and laissez-faire economic system.  [This best allows each individual to pursue shis rational self-interest.]

In religion, Objectivism calls for atheism, because God "isn't needed" to explain or decide things, only one's rational mind is.

And in ethics, Objectivism calls for selfishness.  Because self-interest is a person's greatest goal, selfishness is the best course of action and is, ironically, the Objectivist's greatest "virtue."

Ayn and Jesus

Christian ethics seems pretty distant from Rand's.  The greatest goal for the Christian isn't self-interest, but God's glory and comformity to His desires.

In terms of lifestyle, what brings God glory?  What are His desires for us?  According to Jesus: giving our possessions to those in need (Matthew 19), giving liberty to the oppressed (Luke 4), befriending the destitute (Luke 14), reconciling with those we've hurt (Matthew 5), praying for our enemies (Matthew 5), the Golden Rule (Matthew 7), etc.  In summary, we glorify God and live the way he wants largely by what we do for others.  The virtues of Objectivism, you'll recall, are those things we do for ourselves.

To make the contrast as stark as possible, I'll give a remark from each important figure:

"Man—every man—is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life."  Ayn Rand

"This is my commandment: Love each other in the same way I have loved you. There is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for one’s friends."  Jesus

From one side, "Don't sacrifice for others.  Seek your own happiness at all costs."  From the other, "Seek to help and better others' lives, even if this comes at great cost to you.  Were you to give up your very life for others, it would be the greatest possible act of love."

Pondering such extremes

I will mainly let you ponder these two polarities.  What's interesting to me is how two ideas of morality that function so oppositely could both have somewhat sizeable followings.  Usually when two people disagree on a moral issue, they agree on the values but differ on how to best preserve those values (e.g., pro-life and pro-choice supporters both agree on the value of human life and the freedom to decide about one's body). 

But the Christian and the Objectivist seem completely at odds about the very basic values that should guide our ethics.  Paul, one of the most important figures in the history of Christianity, wrote: "Consider others as more important than yourselves."

Yet, I recently listened to a Christian who specializes in Objectivism and he suggested that Rand was on the right track -- that we should naturally pursue our self-interest, but that the error lies in trusting our rational thought alone, to the exclusion of God, to determine what's in our interest.  In fact, this author contended, our greatest happiness, joy, and self-interest can be found only in relationship with God.  This is similar to John Piper's teachings on Christian hedonism.


Anyway, how do you think two opposite views of morality could both gain so much popularity?

Any other relevant thoughts, stories, ideas, jokes, video clips, memories, or questions?

Jon