A (conservative) Christian response to Ayn Rand: "Altruism"

            We’ve discussed her strident opposition to religion or faith (especially those of the Christian variety), but today I’d like to focus on something else. Specifically I’d like to examine her notions about altruism.

            Webster’s defines it as “unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others.” It’s an attitude of being willing to sacrifice one’s own interests in favor of others’.

            Ayn Rand hated this. She absolutely despised the whole idea of sacrificing oneself for others. Her hero in Atlas Shrugged, John Galt, swears that "I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." Of course, the very idea of swearing (in the traditional sense), implies that you’re making a solemn promise to someone or something higher than yourself, asking that Higher Someone or Something to punish you or reward you based on how well you keep that promise. Since Rand was a hardcore atheist/materialist, her hero is only declaring that he’s really really really committed to doing something.

            To her, all of our dealings with others should be based on trade. You do something good for me, and I do something for you in exchange. You do X for me, and in return I’ll do Y. If you do any good for someone, it’s because they deserve it. One of Rand’s main heroes in Atlas is Hank Rearden, who runs his own company (which he started) and who’s invented a new type of metal which is much stronger and cheaper than steel. His mother comes to him and asks him to employ his brother. She doesn’t try to pretend that employing his brother would benefit the company or Rearden at all, or that the brother deserves a job with him. No, she only appeals to his sense of compassion, the fact that his brother needs a job to feel useful.

            He flatly refuses. His lazy, incompetent brother doesn't deserve a job, and the company doesn’t need him, so it’d be unjust to give him something he doesn't deserve. Her reply is that true love would give him the job, not in spite of the fact that he doesn't deserve it, but because he doesn't deserve it.

            That, to Rand, is altruism. That’s one of her main problems with religion, with Christianity in particular. One of the reasons she hated Christianity so much is that she called it "The Kindergarten for Collectivism." If you believe that you owe people assistance just because of who they are (image-bearers of God) and because we're commanded to, then to her it's a hop-skip-and a jump to move from "Our religion obligates us to help the poor" to "Let's have the government enforce this obligation at the point of a gun." What’s the Christian/Biblical response to this?
            I have two responses to this, the real-world one and the philosophical/theological one. The real-world one I addressed yesterday. Despite her claims to the contrary, the strongest advocates of most of what she believed in just happen to be strong believers. The more seriously a Christian or Jew takes his faith and the Scriptures of that faith, the more likely he is to agree with Rand on a lot of stuff. 
            My other answer, the theological one, is what this blog is all about. I sincerely believe, after years of carefully examining the Bible, that it's more sympathetic to what's broadly called the modern "conservative" movement in America than to its opponents, whether you mean conservative economically, politically, or in regards to foreign relations. I don't doubt the sincerity of believers who lean left on a host of issues like the death penalty, the FMS, or pacifism, but I strongly disagree with their interpretation of the Bible, and this blog is a collection of my arguments as to why they--and Ayn Rand--are very very wrong. The Bible--interpreted correctly--does not endorse collectivism as described in her books. 
            Her other argument against altruism is that it is ipso facto unjust. By its very definition, altruism means you're giving to people who don't deserve it. You're giving to people not based on what they can do for you or even because of what they can produce for society, but because you're somehow obligated to. Whether you're obligated to 1) because of religious belief or 2) because of a generalized sense of love for your fellow man or 3) because a government official is pointing a gun at you is really immaterial to her. If you're giving to someone for any reason other than the fact that they deserve it, it's unjust. 

            If you’ve read this blog for any length of time, you’ve seen me point out the dangers of what we might call promiscuous giving. By this I mean that when someone 1) is in obvious financial need or 2) asks you for money, you just hand it to them. You don’t examine the reasons as to why they’re in need. You don’t think about their history, looking at whether or not this is a pattern for them or not. If this is a pattern in their lives, or if it’s obviously because of a dysfunctional behavior, then you don’t present any expectations on changing that behavior before you give to them.

            To be brutally frank, that’s not showing love. I’ve made the case from Proverbs and other places in Scripture that to just hand someone money without taking the above things in consideration is not showing them real love. It’s easing your conscience on the cheap. And to the degree that Rand points out the dangers of promiscuous charity, she has a point.

            But there’s more to our relationships than give-and-take. I have that business type of relationship with my grocery store and my employer. I give them X, and in return they give me Y. I don't expect any altruism or charity from them (except in really rare circumstances). But what about my relationship with my wife?  I actually saw an interview with Rand in which someone questioned her as to whether or not she actually practiced her philosophy in her marriage. She responded with a firm “Yes,” saying that she got benefits out of her relationship with her husband, and he got benefits out of it as well. Not too surprisingly, she had a pretty unconventional marriage, openly cheating on her husband with a lover, and you'd expect to hear, it didn't turn out well at all for anyone involved (including her). 

            Actually, that’s the way a lot of people approach marriage: I do my part, and my wife does her part, and together we have a happy marriage. Needless to say, that's not how the Bible views it. I'm expected to love my wife as Christ loved the church. When she deserves it the least, that’s when I’m supposed to love her the most.

            Or how about my relationship with children? I remember reading a scathing review of Atlas (I’ve since lost the link), in which someone pointed out one rather large lacuna: children. None of the main characters have children. In the Paradise that the book’s heroes have made--in which everyone is a producer and doesn’t depend on the charity of anyone else—there aren’t many children mentioned at all. There’s only one short scene in which a mother is presented, but Rand didn’t go into many details about how her children somehow earned the right (from birth, apparently) to eat from her table.

            You see, my children don’t need to earn food from me. I want them to do chores in order to learn character, but my love for them isn’t based on their performance. As I write this I have a nine-month old daughter. She doesn’t earn her keep. She doesn’t really contribute to the household, unless you count dirty diapers.

            Or how’s about the other end of the spectrum? I believe that you should prepare for your retirement. But physically you’re going to get a lot weaker, slower, and more and more dependent on others. We eventually come full circle, don’t we? You start out with having someone change your diaper, and if you live long enough it’ll happen again.

            This doesn’t even apply that much to friends. Do you approach your friendships in this way? Do you only do things for your friends with the understanding that they’ll do things for you? Really?

            And of course, the biggest counterexample to her paradigm is the Lord himself. No wonder she hated the notion of God so much. Here you have Someone who owes us nothing and who gives and gives and gives without regard to our deserts at all. In fact he gives us the exact opposite of what we deserve. The God of the Bible is one who loved us so much (according to its most famous verse) that he gave his one and only Son so that whoever believes in him won’t perish but have everlasting life.

            The reason why we love people without regard to how much they deserve it is because that’s how the Lord’s treated us. We forgive because he’s forgiven us so much more. We give generously to those in need because he's given us so much more. We love our enemies in imitation of our Father, who sends rain on the good and the bad. We stand up for those who can't stand up for themselves because that’s what our Father expects us to do. 
            This really cuts to the heart of a real misunderstanding about Christian conservatives. If we refuse to just hand someone money who's dysfunctional, it's not because they don't deserve it. I've never used the term "deserving poor," and I'd really discourage its use altogether. What they do or don't deserve isn't a consideration. In imitation of how our Father treats us, (as best we can) we're going to help those in need not based on what they deserve but what they really need. 
            That brings me to a related criticism of Ms. Rand. I've repeatedly heard the word "atomistic" applied by her critics. What does that mean? I read the term a long time before I read an explanation. In Ms. Rand's mind, there are really only two entities: the individual and the government. There are no other entities worth considering. There's me, in my individual ("atomistic") self, and there's the government. But there are other organizations besides the government, and unlike the government, they're strictly voluntary. There are clubs with all sorts of purposes, groups of like-minded people with all sorts of interests ranging from a love of Agatha Christie novels to golf to professional sports teams to a love of fine wines. There are philosophy clubs and political groups and Mothers Against Drunk Driving. But all Ms. Rand cared about was the individual and his rights vs. an ever-intrusive government. 
            And besides the family, there's one institution (although it's much more than that) which is greater than all of them: the Church. There, as an extension and expression of our Father's love, we join--and are treated--not based on any merit on our part but based on our and others' needs. If you're only attending church because of some strict exchange system like Ms. Rand saw her marriage, you're missing the point.  

            I’d love to ask her a simple hypothetical: Let’s say you live in Holland during World War 2, and some Jews come to your door at night, asking you to hide them from the Nazis. What’s your response? As far as this world is concerned, you have nothing to gain and everything to lose by inviting them in. In your system of thought, why should you invite them in, putting yourself, your family, and all your loved ones at risk?

            You see, at times in our lives, all of us need compassion, to be treated not according to what we deserve or according to what we can give but according to our need.

            I think part of her problem rests with one little word error: Self-interest vs. selfishness. We’ll get to that in the next post.