Subscribe to Christianity Today
Subscribe to Christianity Today
Donate to Christianity Today
login | my account
February 23, 2012

Home > 2011 > JuneChristianity Today, June, 2011
Testimony
Ayn Rand Led Me to Christ
How the anti-Christian philosopher prepared me to hear the gospel.




Ayn Rand changed my life. When I embraced her philosophy, Objectivism, the conversion was far more dramatic than my decision, several years later, to follow Jesus Christ—more dramatic, but in the end transitory. Yet Rand, the novelist, philosopher, and uncompromising atheist, inadvertently opened a door for the gospel. I don't believe dead people spin in their graves, but if they did and she could read these words, I imagine Rand would be twirling violently.

As many have noted, Rand's ethic of rational self-interest is incompatible with the gospel, and leads to social as well as spiritual disaster. "Most observers see Rand as a political and economic philosopher," wrote Gary Moore last year in Christianity Today. "I believe that she was first and foremost an anti-Christian philosopher." A six-foot dollar sign wreath towered over her casket, Moore pointed out, an icon of the false gospel she labored to proclaim. I agree entirely that Christianity and Objectivism are utterly incompatible. But my gratitude to Rand remains profound.

My First Conversion

In the spring of 1962, an awkward and philosophically oriented 15-year-old raised in an utterly secular home, I read The Fountainhead and then Atlas Shrugged. Those books triggered a philosophical (and, unknowingly, spiritual) revolution. One evening, immersed in Rand's writings, I listened on the radio to a re-broadcast of a lecture she had delivered a year earlier at the University of Wisconsin, during a symposium called "Ethics in Our Time." Even at a distance of 48 years, I can still hear her heavily accented voice as she quoted from John Galt's speech, the long and detailed summary of Objectivism that appears near the end of Atlas Shrugged: "Yes, this is an age of moral crisis. Yes, you are bearing punishment for your evil …. Your moral code has reached its climax, the blind alley at the end of its course. And if you wish to go on living, what you now need is not to return to morality … but to discover it."

For three years I followed Rand, read every word she published, studied Objectivism and its moral, political, and economic implications, and even tried to imitate the heroes in Rand's novels. Several times, the central character in The Fountainhead, Howard Roark, is accused of staring at people, his piercing eyes making the novel's villains feel judged and found wanting. And so I practiced widening my eyes and keeping them open for extended periods. No one, however, seemed daunted by my gaze.

Because my family lived in New York City, I was able to enroll in a 20-session "Basics of Objectivism" course at the Nathaniel Branden Institute. (Branden, an early Rand associate and a psychologist by training, spent many years teaching Objectivism in partnership with Rand.) The course included sessions on metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, and political and economic theory, with a heavy emphasis on laissez-faire capitalism. When Branden finished his lecture, Rand herself would often answer questions. Among the memorabilia from that period of my life is a scrap of paper with Rand's autograph, the letters sharp and angular. I also enrolled in "Objectivist Economics," taught by a very young Alan Greenspan.

My commitment to Rand and her philosophy, however, did not survive my early years in college. Two figures intervened.

The Unscrupulous God

The first was Plato. In Rand's teaching, Aristotle served as a kind of philosophical hero. Plato, with his tendency toward mysticism, represented philosophical depravity for Rand. So I entered college predisposed to reject Plato, and came armed with Objectivist and Aristotelian weapons for the battle. Then I actually read Plato in a philosophy class. I was shocked to find much to commend his vision of a Reality that is more than the reality we can see. "A young man who wishes to remain an Atheist," C. S. Lewis wrote in Surprised by Joy, "cannot be too careful of his reading. There are traps everywhere—'Bibles laid open, millions of surprises,' as Herbert says, 'fine nets and stratagems.' God is, if I may say it, very unscrupulous."





Christianity Today


  


Subscribe to Christianity Today and get 3 free trial issues. No credit card required.

Please allow 4-6 weeks for delivery. Offer valid in U.S. only.

If you decide you want to keep Christianity Today coming, honor your invoice for just $19.95 and receive nine more issues, a full year in all. If not, simply write "cancel" across the invoice and return it. The three trial issues are yours to keep, regardless.


Click here for international orders2-for-1 Gifts!

Displaying 1–5 of 53 comments

James Matthews

July 11, 2011  7:32pm

@D.Theroux, I am not making an inference. I am pointing to the Divine Revelation of the Bible. It is God revealing Himself to us, telling us the facts about Himself not us guessing. Was God was shocked at Adam and Eve's sin? No, Jesus wasn't a back-up plan. Revelation 13:8 "All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb WHO WAS SLAIN FROM THE CREATION OF THE WORLD." How are people saved? By earning Heaven through choosing to be good? No, God chooses them. Ephesians1:4-6 "For he chose us in him BEFORE THE CREATION OF THE WORLD to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to son ship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will" God being unstoppable saves those He wills to save through the sacrifice of Christ. Romans 8:28 "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, WHO HAVE BEEN CALLED ACCORDING TO HIS PURPOSE."

John Donohuye

July 11, 2011  5:43pm

@David Theroux ..... More citations and void formulations. "Secular religion" is a self-contradiction and a sloppy attempt to smear with your own sin. Those you quote do not qualify as "all"; I will not counter with my lists. Your predilection for ignoring my direct challenges and sending in your pinch-hitters is dull. And free will does not need to be grounded in anything other than existence. That a man's choices are informed by all existents around him does not change the fact he indeed made a choice. Only those desperate to avoid responsibility for being their own captain scatter to the two extremes: mystical impossibility or nihilistic fatalism.

B. Fuller

July 11, 2011  12:49am

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." -John Rogers

David Theroux

July 10, 2011  10:43pm

James Matthews, You must tautologically assume free will to make any inference, which of course refutes your claim that free will does not exist. And if man has no free will then sin has no meaning and Christ’s sacrifice has no meaning or point. God created Man in His image to choose and is hence not a robot, refuting your claim that free will is unbiblical. The further fact that we are discussing such matters is Exhibit A that determinism is false and incoherent.

David Theroux

July 10, 2011  9:37pm

John Donohue, You may believe in free will, but you cannot logically ground it in naturalism. No thoroughgoing naturalist believes in free will because they all deny individual agency as their secular religion denies anything other than a mechanical materialism. Bertrand Russell: “The first dogma which I came to disbelieve was that of free will. It seemed to me that all notions of matter were determined by the laws of dynamics and could not therefore be influenced by human wills.” Steven Pinker: “Our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth. Sometimes the truth is adaptive, but sometime it is not.” Michael Shermer: “We feel free, but it’s a pseudo-free will. It’s not a real free will because there is no little person inside the head making decisions for you that isn’t affected by all causal variables in the world.”

You must be a Christianity Today subscriber or have created a FREE registration to post comments
[Browse More Christianity Today]

Rod and Reel, or Net?

Rod and Reel, or Net?

What it means to catch in community.

A 'Move' in the Right Direction

A 'Move' in the Right Direction

A new book takes a closer look at how churches foster spiritual growth.

more | current issue

Kyria

I Gave Up Worry for ...

Consider taking 40 days to give up a deep...

Books & Culture

Coming to Terms with Our Inheritance

Coming to Terms with...

Slaveholders, segregationists, all of us...

Small Group Dynamics

Recognizing a Blind ...

Learning from the introverts among us

Building Church Leaders

Coaching the Full Life

Coaching the Full Life...

Use the principles of coaching to lead people...

Managing Your Church Blog

Congress Extends Payroll...

Churches must verify employee withholdings...

Search
Search
Search
Scripture Search
Go Deeper