Ah, the days of bathtub gin...

The roarin' twenties.

It was a time of jazz music, the Model T Ford, and indoor plumbing. The Charleston; the first color movies; the first "talkies." Babe Ruth belting home runs.

It was a festive time in America. An age of jubilation.

Oh yeah, and it was a time when alcohol was prohibited.

I found myself thinking about this today. It's an interesting thing to consider, prohibition.

First of all, I don't know why our government ever thought they could outlaw alcohol. But they did: The 18th amendment to our fine Constitution.

Of course, it didn't work. Look at the sponsors for any major sporting event and you'll see that Prohibition fell a little short of its goal.

But why am I writing about the roaring 20's and Prohibition?

Because as I found myself thinking about this today, I began to long for those days---days I never experienced.

I long to live in an era when the most dangerous man in America was a bootlegger selling liquor from hideouts throughout Chicago.

In the 20's there was Al Capone. Now we have Osama Bin Laden. And others like him.

In the 20's the police and federal agents were sniffing out speakeasies and stills (which, for those of you who never watched The Andy Griffith Show, are used to create moonshine). Now our feds sniff out potential airplane hijackers and meth labs.

I live in the Chicago area now, and it's interesting to see how the roarin' twenties, and especially Al Capone, are glorified in artwork, restaurants, memorabilia. Not too far from me, on the Fox River, one can eat at a former speakeasy: Al Capone's Hideaway.

I think that alone says something about what it was like to live in the 20's. Capone, the decade's most notorious thug, is now glorified. Almost as famous as Babe Ruth.

Do you think we'll have a restaurant in this country that pays tribute to Osama Bin Laden in 80 years? I sure hope not.

And what will America look like in 80 years? It's scary to consider, actually. At least I think it is. Our world is complex, our country is economically interwoven with so many other nations, the technology (and weapons development) worldwide has closed the distance between us and other countries---both metaphorically and geographically.

And it makes me long for the days when our biggest threat was a bunch of guys brewing and selling alcohol. When a dance floor full of tipsy folks dancing the Charleston was dangerous enough to demand legislation to protect the American people.

I don't wish to reinstate Prohibition. (That would be a disaster.) But it would've been nice to live in a time when that was our nation's biggest problem. That's all I'm saying.

--Thanks for Reading

Note: Some of you might say that alcohol is still our nation's biggest problem. If you look at the number of drunk driving deaths each year; the number of alcoholics; instances of drunken rage. And if you want to make that argument, I will admit that it's a valid point. It just wasn't the point of this post. After all, drunk driving wasn't a reason for the institution of Prohibition laws.

Well said

This will be my last post on the Christianity/Islam conversation...at least for awhile. And I'll keep this one short.

In the July issue of Christianity Today (one of the benefits of being employed by Christianity Today is having the opportunity to read their issues
earlier than the general public...), Philip Yancey's column on the final page is called, "It's Not About the Crusades," and not so surprisingly, he summed up the current Christianity/Islam situation better than I could.



His final paragraph says this:

"Christians and Muslims face opposite challenges. We in the West have something to learn from cultures that do not push religion to the margins, that see faith as affecting all of life, and that look to religious leaders for guidance on societal and ethical issues. Meanwhile, Islamic nations have something to learn from the Christian West, which has found liberal democracy to be the best way to protect minorities' rights as nations become increasingly multicultural. Not to learn those lessons leads to disaster, as is playing out in the 'clash of civilizations' right now."


So apparently Philip Yancey thinks Christians could learn something from Muslims, too. (I wonder if he's been reading my blog...) His suggestion that Christians could learn something from Muslims who see "faith as affecting all of life" really got my attention. How many Christians, myself included, see faith in this way?

What would it take to make us change? Less television? Less time on the internet? Less time thinking about what we want, what we like, what we plan to buy, what we wish we could afford, where we'd like to visit, and so on?

I don't know.

But the next time Philip Yancey finds inspiration in my blogs, he could at least give me some credit.

Catch you on the Burnside...or something

If you know me well, we've probably talked about Blue Like Jazz. If we're good friends, I've probably purchased it for you. (Kim, I haven't forgotten that you were the one who originally forced me to read it. Thanks for that.) For those of you who also like BLJ and its author, Donald Miller, I want to direct you to a website.

I recently discovered (thanks, CT) that Donald Miller created an online literary journal, The Burnside Writer's Collective. Emphasizing social justice articles, reviews, and a little bit of sports, it's worth checking out. The journal is still developing (I think), so readers can also expect better things to come.

Miller rarely has time to write on BWC, but the articles suggest some ideological similarities between the staff and the journal's founder. Articles are updated every Monday. Here's the link:

http://www.burnsidewriterscollective.com/

Let me know what you think.

-Thanks for Reading

The ugly side of Islam...and Christianity

In recent posts, I wrote about an aspect of the Islamic faith that I think Christians should emulate. I also tried not to accuse Muslims as a whole for what the Jihadist factions have done. But the reality is, there are Jihadist Muslims, and they are dangerous.

These groups of violent Muslims are the uglier side of Islam. But don't be fooled into thinking Christianity doesn't have its own extremists. I would like to give a few examples of the extremists on both sides.

Starting with Islam:

I won't go into detail about Al-Qaeda, or September 11. Those details are well-known.

If I were to focus on the violent actions of Islamic extremists in the MIddle East, I would have too much material for one post. Instead, I want to focus on an article I read recently about how Hamas (the "Islamic Resistance Movement," and an Arabic acronym for "zeal"...thanks, Wikipedia) is trying to brainwash kids into fighting against Jews and the United States. And believe it or not, they're using an imitation Mickey Mouse to do it.

The mouse is named Farfur, though he looks like Mickey's twin. Quoting from an article on FOXNews:

"On the weekly program 'Tomorrow's Pioneers,' Farfur and a young girl name [sic] Saraa' tell children to pray five times each day and drink their milk, while urging the children to 'resist' the 'oppressive invading Zionist occupation.'"

That's good vocabulary for kids, right? Can you imagine a six-year-old talking to you about the "oppressive invading Zionist occupation?"


The Mickey clone also says, in a "squeaky" voice, "'We, tomorrow's pioneers, will restore to this nation its glory, and we will liberate Al-Aqsa, with Allah's will, and we will liberate Iraq, with Allah's will, and we will liberate the Muslim countries, invaded by murderers."

The FOXNews article concludes with a suggestion that the brainwashing is working. I'm not sure exactly what this final quote means, but I get the disturbing gist of it:

"Poems and songs submitted by young viewers contain violent imagery. 'Rafah sings, "Oh, oh,"' one caller says as Farfur mimes carrying a rifle. 'Its answer is an AK-47.'"

The link below contains the article and a video of Farfur. The video contains these troubling quotes, among many others:

"Until we win, with the will of Allah, we will resist until we win."
"We will win, Bush! We will win, Sharon! Ah, Sharon is dead. We will win, Mofaz! Mofaz left. We will win, Olmert! We will win! We will win, Condoleeza!"

Read the whole article here.

That article disturbed me more than the numerous stories of Muslims carrying out "Allah's will" by slaughtering others. As brutal as some of those stories are, I was more saddened to realize that kids are being brainwashed into believing they need to act (and to do so with Ak-47's), that they need to kill and destroy...and to do so because Allah wants them to. To top it off, they use a counterfeit Mickey Mouse, no longer just a playful character created to amuse children, to promulgate their propaganda.

I would have the right to be more outraged, however, if Christians weren't just as guilty.

Christians reading this will be thinking "We're not AS guilty...We don't do stuff like that." You're right, YOU probably don't. But the average Muslim isn't a Jihadist either. And if we're going to try to associate all Muslims with the acts of some, then it must be reciprocal; Christians must also be associated with the actions of their "brothers."

Here are a few examples of Christianity's extremists.

This first example also needs no explanation. But consider Christians who blow up abortion clinics and kill doctors who perform abortions. How is this different than Islamic extremists blowing up buildings and killing people because of their beliefs?

The Ku Klux Klan is another example of Christian extremists. If you don't think they are a Christian group, know that their primary goal is to "Reassert America's White Christian heritage." Among other things, they also wish to return prayer to schools. Are they misguided? Yeah. Do they consider themselves Christians? Yep.
(Source: http://www.mamkschools.org/hommocks/socialstudies/8th_grade/kkk/kkk%20today.htm)

But the main group of Christian extremists I want to talk about is a church congregation from Kansas. They might not be as violent as the abortion-clinic bombers or the KKK, but somehow they manage to be even more hateful.

They belong to the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas. This church's web address indicates many characteristics about its members, including their adherence to faulty theology and tactless expression, their affinity for inappropriate language, and their penchant for aggressively hateful rhetoric. That's a lot to squeeze into one web address, but this church did so by making this their home page:
www.godhatesfags.com

This is the group that pickets funerals, calling these outings "Love Crusades." Even though all they do is spew hatred. This is the group that specifically pickets funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq, often with signs that say the deceased is in hell. This is the group that says "God hates America" and "Thank God for Katrina."


Their website, if you check it out, is the most hate-motivated thing I've ever seen. I almost feel bad including the link, as if I'm promoting them or their disgustingly false doctrine. I'm not promoting them, and I don't see any advertisements on their site, so I don't think they earn any revenue based on internet traffic.

And like the abortion-clinic bombers, like the KKK, these hateful church members claim to promote Christ.

Whether it's conquering and killing "with Allah's will" or shouting "God hates fags!" the result is a blight on the faith these assailants claim, be that Islam or Christianity.

I think it's too easy for Americans to start thinking all Muslims are an enemy. It's true some Muslims (Bin-Laden, anyone?) will cry, "Death to America!" But is that so different from the "Christians" in our country screaming, "God hates America!"?

I'm a Christian, and I don't believe in Allah. But I try to remember that most Muslims aren't an enemy. They are just people who need Jesus. And I would place those members of the Westboro Baptist Church in the same category: they are people who need Jesus.

Aren't we all?


--Thanks for reading

Christianity vs. Islam Part 3

This is my third (and final) post on this subject, but I want to let the reader know that I'm still trying to figure this out. So if my words don't sound very definitive, it's because I'm still searching for understanding.

This is where my deliberation has brought me so far:

I think most people want to sacrifice something. They want to contribute. Christianity, as it is often presented, doesn't ask for anything other than belief. (The requests for money come later.) But when people choose to commit to something, I think they want the result to be something tangible.

And this finally leads me to Islam.

Here are some basic requirements of the Islamic faith:

Muslims must:

1) Pray 5 times a day facing Mecca.

2) Observe the "Zakat," which is essentially mandatory tithing.

3) Fast from dawn to dusk during the month of Ramadan.

4) Go on a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once before they die.


At first glance, Islam clearly demands more than just belief from its followers. And I think these requirements might appeal to people who feel like their life is missing something.

Now, I don't think this argument applies to those who have felt called by the Holy Spirit, by those who have felt God's presence. Because I think these people understand the realness of the Christian God. And their commitment (I think) will stem from this understanding.

But as for that person who feels their life is missing something... Let's pretend this person goes to a Christian church and hears a message about "all you have to do is believe." And they think about it for a moment and decide they don't believe yet. Furthermore, they had been looking for something to tangibly fill their time, to fully establish their new commitment. And "just believe" doesn't do it. But Islam on the other hand demands five prayers facing Mecca every day. That's tangible. This person can convert to Islam, and they can do their best to fill a void in their life by doing all the things required by Islam.

And they can be proud of their commitment, proud of their devotion, proud to have something tangible to prove their new faith.

I'm not sure this is how it works, but I think it's possible.

*****

In the May issue of Christianity Today, Mark Galli examined the expanding religious freedoms in Vietnam ("A New Day In Vietnam"). While his article emphasized the hope that exists now that the Vietnamese government has eased away from its history of religious persecution, I found my attention drawn to one sentence in his article:

"Dac Lak, a center of persecution just a few years ago, is now the center of church growth."

Galli was just showing how much has changed, and how positive the change is. But I think this sentence is also evidence of something bigger. I think it suggests that people want to commit to something that demands sacrifice, something that goes beyond belief.

A persecuted church can't preach a "just believe and everything will be great" message. If they do, it will still sound like this: "Just believe in Jesus, and you'll get to heaven...but be prepared to endure hell on earth first."

And there's no doubting the commitment necessary to exhibit faith in the face of adversity.

So what am I saying Christian churches should do? Institute mandatory prayer times and a journey to Bethlehem? No. Am I saying that we would be better off if all Christian churches suffered persecution? No.

I just think we need to quit putting a smile on every message from the pulpit. Some of Jesus' messages were pretty intense, and they weren't just about how great everything would be if we believe in him. As I wrote before, when we preach "just believe and be saved" messages, I think we sound like we're hiding something. And this might turn people away. I think this same message might also deter those who come to church looking for a tangible commitment to fill a void in their life. And they might turn away before they actually experience the realness of a relationship with Jesus.

I think we can learn something from Islam, a religion that demands commitment, a religion that doesn't try to plaster a happy face on every message.

Instead of the fake, "nothing but daisies and roses" messages, I think Christians should proclaim this message ad infinitum: "If you believe, you will be saved...but that's just the first step. It's a long journey after that. It won't always be easy; It won't always be happy. But the Church is designed to help us travel this narrow path together. For better or worse, it will be an adventure. And it will be worth it."

--Thanks for Reading

Christianity vs. Islam Part 2

I already regret my title for this mini-series comparing Christianity and Islam. It is the "versus" that I regret because I don't want to perpetuate the belief that we are (as my dream in the previous post probably did suggest) at war with Muslims.

As a country, the United States is at war with those Jihadist factions who threaten lives of innocent people. Okay, fine. But this is different than waging a holy war against another religion, something I'm pretty sure Christ didn't call us to do. Perhaps we are called to campaign for truth; I like that idea. But too often we criticize, complain, slander, and malign ideas of other groups with the claim that we are exposing falsehood. And even when these intentions are good, the result (I believe) would be more desirable if we shared the truth without launching attacks on the beliefs of others.

I'm not saying we should promote or even tolerate (I hate the way this word has been stripped it of it's true meaning, the way too many people now believe intolerance is always wrong) differing beliefs. I'm saying, as Christians, our focus shouldn't be on maligning other beliefs, but instead we should extol the virtues and truths of the Christian faith.

And that is why I regret the "versus" in this title. But with that error already made, I couldn't have a Part 1 without an encore. In this encore, my goal is not to enhance any tensions existing between Christianity and Islam; Rather, I want to compare the two mammoth faith systems, focusing specifically on what Christianity could learn from Islam.

And I believe Christianity has a lot to learn from Islam.

In his "Great Commission," Jesus says, "I have been given all authority in heaven and on earth. Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Teach these new disciples to obey all the commands I have given you. And be sure of this: I am with you always, even to the end of the age." (Matthew 28:18-20)

I especially want to emphasize the part that says, "Teach these new disciples to obey all the commands I have given you." Because as Christians, even when we are doing our best to "make disciples of the nations" or at least of those in our nation or our neighborhood, how often do we stress these things?

Instead, in many American churches, a visitor will hear the same happy message: "All you have to do is ask for forgiveness, invite Jesus to live in your heart, and you'll go to heaven."

Heaven, apparently, is the ultimate goal. And to gain admittance, potential Christians hear that they must sacrifice nothing. Instead, as the music plays, all they have to do is come forward and pray. No sacrifice necessary. But an eternal reward. Guaranteed.

And then we wonder why people don't believe.

I was raised in a church, but if I hadn't been, I wouldn't believe that crap. Say a prayer, sacrifice nothing, and live forever in heaven? C'mon, where's the small print?

Some of you might be saying "There is no small print! That's all there is to it!"

I love Jesus, okay. Dedicating my life to serving him is the best decision I'll ever make. But I'm telling you, there is small print. And it's only small because we (as Christians, and as churches) have made it small. We emphasize an eternal reward, peace, happiness, sometimes even financial success (which is another matter entirely), and we put on a big, happy face. Often a big, happy, fake face.

Jesus' approach was just a little different.

In the sixth chapter of John, a massive crowd is following Jesus because of the miracles he has performed. (He had just finished feeding 5,000 men, and who knows how many women and children, with two fish and five loaves of bread.) To increase the numbers of his "congregation," all Jesus has to do is keep doing what he's doing: miracles, free food, and all sorts of other happy stuff.

Instead, he tells them the truth: "I tell you the truth, anyone who believes has eternal life" (47). Sounds like the same message we hear in churches today, right? If we believe, we get. No strings attached and no sacrifice needed. But Jesus isn't done;
"I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you cannot have eternal life within you" (53).

Hmmm. Sounds like our part of the deal doesn't end with "belief."

At the end of this lesson, (John 6:66), the Bible says, "At this point many of his disciples turned away and deserted him."

He wasn't trying to grow his numbers. He was simply sharing the whole message. Sort of like he does in Mark 8:34-35, when he says, "If any of you wants to be my follower, you must turn from your selfish ways, take up your cross, and follow me. If you try to hang on to your life, you will lose it. But if you give up your life for my sake and for the sake of the Good News, you will save it."

Again, he's demanding his followers do more than just believe.

Maybe you're thinking, "But the followers deserted him? Is that what we want to do in our churches? Drive people away?" Yes, if they are driven away by the Truth. These followers who turned away were following Jesus for a magic show and free food, and when he got serious about what it means to be a Christ-follower, they decided they weren't interested. Show's over, time to go home.

And I suspect that the followers who stayed with Jesus, because of his message, became more devoted, more committed. As they heard Jesus say that following him would be more than a magic show, they decided, "Yeah, we want that."

Jesus told the truth and forced people to make a decision, to commit. He didn't try to lure potential followers into his fold by promising only happy things; he didn't neglect to mention the the commitment he desires for us.

But how does any of this relate to Islam? I'll tell you in the next post.

--Thanks for Reading

Christianity vs. Islam Part 1

One evening last week, I fell asleep while reading. As I slept, I had an unusually symbolic dream. Though it resembles the format of Biblical prophecy, I attribute this to my reading of the prophetic book of Ezekial. As for the topic, I believe that to be the result of recent musings. So please don't think I'm trying to predict what is to come. I'm merely sharing this because I found it interesting, and because I think it adequately sets the tone for what I plan to write about Christianity and Islam.

When I woke up, I recorded the dream because I didn't want to forget it. This is what I wrote:



I had a dream in which Christianity and Islam were fighting for
ownership of humanity, battling for control.

And in this dream, I saw two dogs fighting over a ravaged and bloody
carcass. Both beasts were clamping down, trying to get a better grip
on their prey, hoping to tear it completely from the mouth of the
other.

Then they became birds, still tearing at the ravaged corpse, clamping
and pulling, biting and jerking, trying desperately to pry the prey
from the mouth of their adversary.

I knew the carcass represented mankind as a whole. And as I watched
the two beasts tearing into their prey, I heard mysellf say in a
panicked voice, "They're going to destroy it!"

And then I woke up.


--Thanks for Reading (Your Comments are Appreciated)

When the Bible isn't suitable for church...

Ever read Ezekial 23?

I think I first stumbled upon it when I was in junior high or high school. At the time, I was shocked (and being a typically immature young man, probably also highly amused) to find that God's Word contained such naughty things.

Examples:

Ezekial 23:2 "They became prostitutes in Egypt. Even as young girls, they allowed men to to fondle their breasts."

Ezekial 23:8 "She was still as lewd as in her youth, when the Egyptians slept with her, fondled her breasts, and used her as a prostitute."

Ezekial 23:19-20 "Yet she turned to even greater prostitution, remembering her youth when she was a prostitute in Egypt. She lusted after lovers with genitals as large as a donkey's and emissions like those of a horse."

Can you picture many pastors saying that from the pulpit: "She lusted after lovers with genitals as large as a donkey's and emissions like those of a horse."? I think the pastor that read that verse (in many churches) would have a few unpleasant voicemail messages waiting for him on Monday morning.

I read these passages again recently. Instead of being amused, like I had been when I was younger, this time I felt something like uneasiness.

Part of me felt like these things didn't belong in the Bible. It's so crude and tawdry. Why would God include something about lusting "after lovers with genitals as large as a donkey's"? Was it really necessary to be so descriptive?

Yeah, it was. And I just realized why.

Here's the context. Ezekial, a prophet of God, is recording what God reveals to him. Chapter 23 is all about these two sisters who turn to prostitution. God calls them Oholah and Oholibah. God says through Ezekial, "I married them and they bore me sons and daughters. I am speaking of Samaria and Jerusalem, for Oholah is Samaria and Oholibah is Jerusalem" (verse 4).

Did you catch that part about God saying he "married them" and they bore him "sons and daughters"? These were God's chosen people. But what happens in verse 5? "Then Oholah lusted after other lovers instead of me." Later it will say that Oholibah (Jerusalem) followed her sister's footsteps, but she was "even more depraved" (verse 11). So if God "married" these girls, then this prostitution of theirs, I'm sure, is not something about which He would just shrug His almighty shoulders.

Though this chapter doesn't conclude with verse 35, I think it adequately sums up God's main point: "And because you have forgotten me and turned your back on me, this is what the Sovereign LORD says: You must bear the consequences of all your lewdness and prostitution."

God is telling his people that he will not tolerate their betrayal. He will not permit such unfaithfulness.

But again, why the explicit language? Why would God choose such offensive descriptions?

Well, if pastors today can't read these verses about "gentials the size of a donkey's" without getting phone calls, what kind of response do you think it would have evoked thousands of years ago? I don't know, but I think people might have been a little more conservative then. In a time before internet porn, MAXIM magazine, Victoria's Secret commercials, and R-rated movies. And remember, the people Ezekial was to share this with were the ones God was calling prostitutes. So it wasn't just lewd to them; it was personal.

(By the way, I can't help but feel sorry for Ezekial. In verse 36, God tells him, "you must accuse Oholah and Oholibah of all their detestable sins." Man, I'm sure that was an enjoyable task. Then in Chapter 24, Ezekial isn't allowed to mourn following the death of his wife. Poor guy.)

But back to the question: Why the explicit nature?

Maybe because God wanted to show His people exactly how offensive their behavior was to Him. Maybe because God wanted to frame their betrayal in terms that could almost do it justice, comparing it to the most despicable, most deplorable thing those people could imagine, something that would make them cringe, angry, ashamed. Maybe to make them feel a hint of what God felt when he watched his people eagerly pursuing other gods when He had always remained (and always would remain) so unwaveringly faithful to them.

At this point, God has made up his mind to judge both of these "prostitutes" for their unfaithfulness (see verses 36-49), and because God is loving, maybe he's also using Chapter 23 as a resounding explanation for why he's about to punish them. The punishment is coming, but God wants to make sure His people (the adulterous prostititues that they are) know why. He lets them know he hasn't stopped loving them, but their actions demand consequences.

Even though I didn't understand the need for such explicit descriptions when I first read these passages, now I can't think of a better way for God to convey his displeasure with His people's unfaithfulness. And if it can still be offensive to us today, that's probably good. Because we've been unfaithful, too. Haven't we?

Haven't we also lusted after lovers with genitals as large as a donkey's and emissions like those of a horse?

Does that offend you?

I hope so. Because I think that was God's intention.


--Thanks for Reading (Your comments are always welcome)


Note: I would be proud to know any pastor who read these passages in church. Because the Bible is the last thing that needs to be censored.

Blog Changes Going into Effect Immediately

Consider this a Public Service Announcement:

Since starting my own blog a couple months ago, I have maintained an erratic schedule for posting. My posts have been long and detailed.

And I've realized recently that this is rarely what people look for in blogs. People want blogs that are concise: good, but short.

Because I recognize the opportunities that exist in the blogosphere, I plan to start posting more regularly. And most of my posts will be shorter, though hopefully still worth reading. Some will still be long, of course, since I am naturally long-winded and am easily carried away by something about which I am passionate.

But if you are someone who checks my blog, feel free to check it more regularly. Because the content will be fresher, and you won't have to sit down for 25 minutes to read one post anymore.


Coming soon:

--God's use of an explicit sexual allegory in Ezekial 23

--Islam vs. Christianity: Why Christian evangelism has a lot to learn from the Muslim world


--As always, thanks for reading

What is love really?

I want to briefly clarify an aspect of my previous post, "Objectively Thinking."


In that post, I refer frequently to the concept of "love," using its existence as the basis for my disagreement with Ayn Rand's Objectivism. But it has been brought to my attention (Thanks, Nate and Luke) that I need to clarify what exactly love is----or what exactly I mean when I use the word.

These two thinkers stressed the importance of differentiating between love as a verb and love as a noun, and also between self-less and selfish love. In this case, I think the most important distinction is between selfish love and self-less love.

I wrote that post with the concept of self-less love (though I hadn't put that name to it) firmly ingrained in my psyche. Because of this perception, I hadn't even considered that selfish love could exist. I think, in fact, many of you would question this, saying "Can it really be love if it's self-centered?"

My answer would have been no. No, it can't really be love. But Ayn Rand, I believe, would disagree. And that's why this clarifying post is necessary.

She wouldn't deny love's existence, but she would assert (I think) that our love stems from our selfish interests. I admit I am a selfish person. I know I struggle with myselfishness (I combined those words intentionally. It's poetic. I think.). And I know I can't love perfectly. But based on what I have felt and known, based on those times when I have been able to put myselfish interests aside, I believe true love stems from self-lessness. And I believe this is the model of love God has shown us, especially through the life and death of Jesus Christ.


I still believe God is love (self-less love). I still believe love exists (self-less love). And I still believe Rand's Objectivism attempts to deny both God and love (self-less love). And I think she's wrong on both counts. Sadly and depressingly wrong.


--Thanks for Reading

Objectively thinking...

I recently finished reading Ayn Rand's classic novel, The Fountainhead.

Though I was immersed in the plot and interested in the characters, I read the novel with a twinge (sometimes it was more like a convulsive twitch) of doubt. The novel is not overtly allegorical, but all the elements are there. And they all combine to guide (maybe "strongarm" is a better term) readers to an understanding of Rand's thesis (something I prefer not to find in novels). To her credit, away from the pages of The Fountainhead, she never tried to deny her theory nor her use of novels (including another classic, Atlas Shrugged) as vehicles to express her philosophy.

In fact, she was so open about her philosophical ideals, that she founded her own school of philosophical thought: Objectivism.

Ayn Rand summarizes Objectivism like this:

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."

This philosophy is exhibited full force in The Fountainhead through the glorification of Howard Roark, an architect who flouts societal norms to pursue personal achievement. Roark is the "fountainhead" to which the title refers, the source from which all things flow. Why? Because he is willing to put himself first, to ignore the expectations of others and pursue only that which matters to him. His selfishness is glorified as a way of being true to oneself. (It's no surprise that Rand also wrote a book titled "The Virtue of Selfishness.")

Objectivism is still championed today by the Ayn Rand Institute, which, according to its website( http://www.aynrand.org ), has a "two-pronged strategy" (it never specifies for what goal this "strategy" is designed) that includes "educational programs" to enable the institute to "find, train, and support individuals who thoroughly understand Ayn Rand's ideas" and "outreach programs" through which Rand's works are "disseminated...to the general public."

Wow, what kind of author wouldn't crave that kind of PR? Though unfortunately for her, Rand isn't alive to reap the financial benefits. She passed away in 1982, roughly eight months before I was born--not that this information is relevant in any way.

I'm not going to say that Ayn Rand's philosophy is wrong (at least, I won't say that so definitively), and I certainly won't claim that it is entirely lacking in merit. Rand was wiser than I ever will be; in Objectivism, she created something grandiose, something that could only be conceived in the mind of an introspective, observational, and extremely astute thinker.

But, that doesn't make her right.

Stephen Hawking, for example, might be able to write a confounding dissertation refuting the existence of gravity; he could espouse theories, formulas, theorems, and all kinds of data that would boggle my mind. Yet, even though I would never claim to be smarter, more capable of significant and profound thought, than Stephen Hawking, I could know that his thesis was wrong. Because he formed it on a faulty premise, one that doesn't allow for the existence of gravity.

Rand's philosophy, I would suggest, is also formed on a faulty premise--one that doesn't allow for the existence of God.

Taken from the Ayn Rand Institute's website, here are the essentials of Objectivism (Feel free to skip over number 4):

1. Reality exists as an objective absolute--facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes, or fears.
2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
3. Man--every man--is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man's rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.
source: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_intro

(And that is just the "Introduction.")


As I said earlier, I'm not going to argue that her whole theory is bogus. (For example, how can one argue with the suggestion that "facts are facts--independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes, or fears"?) But, again, I think her premise is flawed.

Rand's theory clearly does not allow for the existence of God. On the same ARI website mentioned above, within the "Essentials of Objectivism," one can find statements such as "Thus Objectivism rejects any belief in the supernatural" and "Thus Objectivism rejects mysticism," defining mysticism as "any acceptance of faith or feeling as a means of acquiring knowledge," and "Thus Objectivism rejects any form of determinism, the belief that man is a victim of forces beyond his control," which is then classified to include "God" as one of the forces beyond man's control.

As for the Christian idea of living one's life for God...a response to this can be found in Rand's view of ethics, which states "Thus Objectivism rejects any form of altruism--the claim that morality consists in living for others or for society."

These ideas become more interesting to me when I consider what 1 John 4:16 says:

"And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him" (NIV).


God is love. In the light of Ayn Rand's philosophy, it is interesting to think about this verse, because while Objectivism clearly does not allow for the existence of God, it also (not so coincidentally) leaves no room for the existence of love.


Of course the rejection of love isn't openly stated (Nowhere does it say, "Thus Objectivism rejects the belief in love..."). But think about it:

Point 1 says "Reality exists in facts."
Point 2 says that reason is the key to knowledge, and it limits reason to ideas that can be derived from the five senses.
Point 3 states that man exists only for himself.
Point 4 really just promotes Capitalism (undoubtedly because Rand barely escaped from newly Communist Russia in 1925).

Based on the first 3 points (the 4th point has no bearing on a conversation about any emotion, or things regarding man's individual experiences, since it is more concerned with man as an organized, cooperative body), I challenge anyone to find something in Rand's philosophy that allows for love. Reason? Is love reasonable? Reality, facts? What can be factual about love?

Love can't be directly connected to the ability to taste, touch, smell, see, or hear. Love can't be perfectly categorized, accurately measured, or even adequately compared. (How can one know what "love" feels like to another? It would be like knowing how much someone else enjoys the taste of lobster, or pistachio-flavored ice cream.)

I know these arguments could be made for other strong emotions, but I think there is a difference. Anger, for example, usually can be traced to a recognizable source. Love's origin is not nearly as easy to pinpoint. We also can feel love, sometimes inexplicably, for family members with whom our relationships are strained. Why? How?

Personally, I believe love might be the one emotion that exists completely detached from reason. No one decides to love someone because it's prudent, reasonable, the most logical step for achieving one's future goals. (Some might choose to marry for these reasons, but not to love.)

Though love can't be proven scientifically, or even philosophically (at least, I don't think it can), few would argue that love doesn't exist. Not even Ayn Rand would suggest this, regardless of what her philosophy says (or doesn't say). I can say this because even Howard Roark, Rand's "fountainhead," her "ideal man," acknowledges love for two people in her novel. How her ideal man can love, when he is supposed to function solely through the machinery of reason, is something she never bothers to explain. I would contend that it is something she can't explain. Because it just doesn't fit.

And this is where Objectivism breaks down. Love exists. None can prove it, but we know it to be true.

God's existence is something that I know I have felt, and something I can't prove. But God's existence is something I know to be true (And I don't mean "relativistic truth," as if it isn't true for others. I just mean I can't say I know that they know it to be true. One can't be certain about what others "know.") But God's existence is something I have felt deeply and truly, sort of like the way I feel love for (and from) my family, friends, and Barbie. I think there is an explanation for why these feelings are similar, and it goes back to 1 John: 4:16:

"God is love."

And I think everyone has felt that on some level, whether they know it or not. I don't think anyone can find fulfillment or purpose in Objectivism, in the idea that our own happiness should be our "moral purpose in life," that "productive achievement" is our "noblest activity," or even that "reason" is the only "absolute."

Because love is absolute; love is real. And God is love. To deny God is to deny love, and to deny love is to deny God. Either way, without God and without love, we would be left with nothing but ourselves. We would be left with only our ability to reason, our ability to achieve, and our own personal pursuit of happiness. We would be incapable of transcending Rand's doctrine of selfishness; we would be left with Objectivism.

If this were really the world we live in, one without God and without love, then Ayn Rand's philosophy would do a great job of categorizing and explaining it. Thankfully for all of us (despite what her theory claims), hers isn't a world of reality, but a product of her own construction.

Sort of like the impressive buildings designed by her beloved protagonist, her manifestation of Objectivism, architect Howard Roark.

As for Howard Roark, I admit I liked him. He demanded my admiration as I observed his resolve, hard-nosed determination, and unwavering belief in himself. I respected his unwillingness, or inability, to compromise.

And yet, I always felt that twinge, that convulsive twitch, of doubt. Howard Roark was created by Ayn Rand to exemplify a life lived rationally, relying solely on reason, but I couldn't escape the feeling that, page after page, no matter how hard Rand tried to make him real (and she often tried very hard, with long-winded diatribes that would promptly be edited down if the book were written today), Howard Roark just wasn't believable.

And that's because Howard Roarks do not exist in reality. Neither does Ayn Rand's Objectivism.

Thank God.



--Thanks for Reading.

Note: If this were a book review, I would recommend The Fountainhead. It was Rand's philosophy with which I found contention. The story itself was intriguing and refreshing in many ways. I tried to refrain from providing too much plot detail in order to preserve the novelty for any prospective readers. If you're interested in reading it, don't let me discourage you. I enjoyed it.