Hi graeme:

What actually is your question?

As for the Gospel of Ayn Rand,

good point. I wondered that myself

Partly it was reflection I felt strongly about, 'the direction owe have been heading with increasing spped for fifty years; and ( was disgusted by the failures of our news media, our political leaders, and our churches to recognize it.hin

The Gospel of Ayn Rand has becime the guiding force in our society.  We're  going to see it  far more in the very near future. I don't  think we begin to understand the damage this is causing. And I am particularly anthgry that the church has just watched.

When I volunteered to lead a current events group at the church, the mlinister wanted assurance that I would put them in a Christian context. That was a turning point for me. I suddenly realized I had always put them into a Christian context. But now I wonder about the church.

Can it see Christianity in a Christian context? 

the central message was not about heaven of the flames of hell, It was about our behaviour and our responisblilites toward others.. The cult of Ayn Rand  now has rimmense power in both  Canada and the US. The  resulting suffering  will soon be far worse. I  don't want the church to pick policial sides.

So. my question is" will the church face up to a  philosophy, and discuss it with their congregations?

The trouble with that is that the biggest financial supporters of many congegrations are capitalists who support the Gospel of Prosperity. Preaching against it would alienate them and drive away much needed funds.

My experience over the years is that is not true at all.

 I have to agree with DKS.

Hi Arminius,

Having served predominantly rural pastoral charges my experience is much the same as David's and Steven's.

No Gospel of Prosperity proponents in the fishing villages of Newfoundland and Labrador.  Putting your life on the line dragging for shrimp just to have dockside graders tell you how little your catch, and therefore your life is worth kicks prosperity hard in the jewels.

And my rural point set in the clay of Haldimand County might have dreams of prosperity.  As soon as the alarm goes off in the morning those dreams fade away and our reality  resembles more survival than anything else.

Farmers and fishers could tell you better than I how the Gospel of Prosperity has never been their friend or the gospel that they have shared.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I've come to believe that social justice springs from spiritual transformation, which in turn springs from deep immersion in spiritual practices.  As long as it is considered adequate for people to base their spirituality on attending a one hour service once a week, the church will never be an effective tool for the kind of transformation that can stand against the world described here. 

Regarding Ayn Rand...I haven't read Atlas Shrugged, but I did read The Fountainhead and We, the Living.  Although I don't agree with her entirely, there is more to her point of view than not loving our neighbours.  What she was really opposed to was self-sacrafice, especially in the form of denying yourself in order to help others.  She believed that life was about living up to our greatest potential; it can easily be extrapolated from her work that by not living up to our greatest potential that the world loses out on the best that we can be just as much as we miss out on living our lives to our fullest.  To a great extent, she hit the nail on the head with that idea.  She actively sought to end people doing what their parents wanted them to do or giving up their dreams to bring in a pay cheque.  She also believed that by giving too much to people (in particular through welfare or charity) that it was actually a hinderance to those people learning to take care of themselves.  On the whole I don't agree with that part of her perspective, although I do know of instances in which that does happen.  

An educational system based upon her views would encourage kids to follow their own dreams and take risks, as opposed to using kids to achieve other ends.  In The Fountainhead, one of the main "villains" is a man who tries to direct the behaviour of others.  The hero, Howard Roark, is an architect who breaks all the rules of architecture and challenges traditional design.  He is strong and independent; while he doesn't sacrafice himself for others, he doesn't use them, either.  At several points throughout the novel, he treats others with great kindness.  His personal integrity is his compass and his grounding, though...he refuses to bend when it comes to his beliefs and/or his vision.  If anything, I think he's a very positive role model for kids and adults alike.

Not only do I agree with DKS but believe that digging gold mines to keep a church open is the first toll of the bell for any church. 

Ayn Rand was a punk journalist who wrote trash Nancy Drew adult /Harlequin romance novels.  God knows why people took her seriously.  She must have laughed her anorexic bones to the grave. 

MistsofSpring, I suspect that you and I agree on many points.  I equally suspect that like all writers Rand's views are fitted to suit a person's desires and not necessarily a reflection of the author's.

I am a firm believer in people living up and beyond their potentials.  In order for people to do that many will need support.  Few people will have all the resources they need to achieve their goals and it is society that ultimately loses due to that lack of support.

In a mutually cooperative society self sacrifice is necessary to a certain degree.  We can not all be poets, architects or writers, for if we did the term "starving artist" would take on a global definition.   What society needs is to recognize and support the importance of each individual, as a person and their individual function within society.

Instead of degrading those who work for the greater good, their contributions should be valued for providing the support necessary for others to reach their potential.  Instead of making heroes out of those who make the most money, uplift those that sustain life to themselves and those around them.

I agree with Graeme that the ideal that is being uplifted in many quarters - not all but many - is destructive.  It is a philosophy that does not promote potential but one that denies the opportunity to all but an elite few.

In my humble opinion, it is no coincidence that those who provide the essentials to our existence are the least valued financially in today's society.  Yet, those who disabuse self-sacrifice are the first to demand the sacrifices of these individuals and reap the unearned benefit.

In the end, any philosophy that does not recognize the co-dependency of living organisms on this planet will result in a diminished existence for everyone because all the money in the world will not be enough to purchase clean air or a loaf of bread once they are gone.

LB

We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality.

   Ayn Rand

Don't sell Ayn Rand short. She is the messiah of the neo conservative movement, and they effectively control the world's most powerful nation (for a few more years, anyway), This is a very powerful and effective movement. This is the movement that decided almost twenty years ago that the US must now use its military to establish an economic order in favour of the self interest of the US. Thus Iraq, Afghanistan, and more to come. (I know. I'm anti-American. And you have never bothered to google their statement of purpose "Project for the New American Century."

As to the point that the individual must be free to develop his or her own potential, I can think of awkward examples of some who did just that - Caligula, Atilla the Hun, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung.

In any case, it should be obvious that he person least likely to be able to do that is the slave working in Canadian-owned mines in the Congo. The most able to do it will be the son of Brian  Mulroney.

Certainly, privatizing education with the best schools for the rich only is not going to do an awful lot to help most people shape their own destinies.

There is nothing complicated about Ayn Rand. She was a thoroughly selfish person, interested only in herself, and with contempt for anybody who was not rich. I dated girls like her in a foolish age. I also remember have supper with a very popular CBC radio host (one of my on air favourites) who had married a very rich husband and made her contempt for the poor very clear. That's why she produced a son who became a columnist for the National Post, and then a speech writer for Bush. Her daughter, very similar, produced a heart wrenching article about the hardships of divorce, such having to deal with the interior decorator on one's own.

This is a religious issue. I don't see how any church could ignore it. But they do. They are often more socially conventional than religious.

How many churches had prayers for the innocent dead 2,000+ of 9/11? How many had prayers for the innocent dead of more than a million in Iraq? How many have prayers for the totured and the dead of Guantanamo?

The church has to live with evil. It doesn't have to shake hands with it.

Many churches have said these prayers and even taken action on them, graeme. I can't speak for the UCC, although I know that at least some within it are involved in various social justice activities like the anti-war movement, but UUs are fighting these battles everyday. I know some of them personally. Look up Global Importune on the Web. I know the man behind it personally. His wife is President of my fellowship's Board. There were UUs in the G20 demonstrations and UUs have helped organize anti-war protests here in London. One of our members (who has moved to Toronto) was hosting American war resisters who had fled to Canada and was supported by the church. To suggest that all churches are somehow globally compromised by the neo-con business conspiracy that rules the world is a real stretch in my experience.

Mendalla

I didn't say all. But I could safely say most. And I could safely say most Christian individuals. And there are some, many, North American, Christian churches that have clearly crossed the line to the other side.

I was active in social justice in Montreal. So I have some knowledge of how much (and how little) UCs were doing. This is not a side issue for happy volunteers as the bundles for britain people of World War 2.

We are facing a very public, skilful and sustained attack on all the principles of Christianity. This isn't just something for occasional meetings in the church basement.

I think Rand was a sad miserable figure. She had a rough early life and instead of turning towards GOD she turned away. She not only embraced atheism but she took it a step farther and rejected altruism outright. I have never in my life met even one atheist that was so deliberately cold and heartless, most are just as loving and giving as any thiest (and in some cases more so). Why so many people have chosen to embrace someone so soulless and bitter I don't know. I think it's fair to say that she was an anti-christ. Not THE anti-christ obviously, but AN anti-christ.

quite agreed.

graeme quote: 

"We are facing a very public, skilful and sustained attack on all the principles of Christianity. This isn't just something for occasional meetings in the church basement."

I'm inclined to agree with you but it isn't something new. Possibly it has become worse over the years but its been going on for many. I read some of Ann Rand  years ago. I can't speak for the church people because I'm not in the church since many years. I think you're trying to point out that the characters of  many  people within the church ( surely  not all) isn't very much different from that of secular society in general? Off with your head ......!!  I have heard people say this very same thing. You obviously feel that church organizations should be out in  front pushing our governments to act quickly on behalf of Haiti as one example. Instead, the church people visit Haiti and tell us the people there are very nice and they had a wonderful trip?

 Off topic but  I love our Gov. General ( Jeanne ?)  who is being replaced and will now be in charge of  affairs in Haiti. Going there with money and a big smile she'll be the god or darling of Haiti. She has neglected to tell us that things are  almost as bad there now as they were six months ago. I'm sure she goes to church too .

The UC does speak and stand up for justice but perhaps not loud enough to really rock the boat?  We always  talk about how  most  churches didn't stand up and speak out  during the holocaust. What kind of people were they ? Perhaps today we need to ask ourselves this very same question as different kinds of genocides and holocausts swirl around us over the years?  We aren't bad people, just a wee bit deaf and blind because we've become so accustomed to all the daily horrors we see on TV. For our own sanity perhaps its needful that we close our eyes?

At its best, the world has never been good at following the principles of any of its major religions. But we are now faced with a sort of religion that defines morality as sinful. The really tough part is it is widely accepted by he wealthiest and most powerful people in the world. Their  voice is the think tank - like the CD Howe. They also own most of the news media. They also own most of the politicians.

The country that comes closest to the ideal of Ayn Rand (live only for yourself; do nothing that is not in your self-interest) is Congo where some of the world's wealthiest people sit on the boards of mining companies (Brian Mulroney is or was one of them) that make billions in a country where the average daily incoome is thrity cents, and there are viruallyno schools or hosptialsbecause the rich are excused from paying taxes.

A near equal to Congo is Haiti, and the US has run it for generations on the same Randist principles as Congo.

It is ironic, but from my experience Aynn Rand followers, preach individualism, but practice conformity. They are all clones of each other.   Aynn herself was very bitter towards any of her followers who diverted in a little from her opinions.

It is my belief she is attractive to people who lack a sense of identity, but through her philosophy she they have no way of developing one.  

The same thing happens in many cults. They are dangerous because they reject change as they lead themselves and their followers to death. However her cult  is worse as it is one that preaches sociopathy as a way of life. Her followers are a bunch of people with borderline personnality disorder.     

Graham does have a point about her philosophy infecting churches and the whole culture.  I believe this is because we are afraid of examining our past and facing the fact that so much of our wealth is derived from racism/colonialism, mass murder/attempted genocide of other nations.

This is why it is so important that we pay attention to the stories that come out of First Nations during the reconcilliation process.  Unless we face the facts, we are doomed to die as a culture and  we will destroy the earth as a p[lace fit for human habitation.  It is only by learning to live together  and helping each other that we will be able to survive as a species.

The UCC is too divided to be of any importance. We are right where Rand would have us be.  

We are the church that protects congregations that preach and practice empire and oppression, because we falsely beleive  to oppose empire and oppression is to practice empire and oppression. 

A good example of Rand's thought at work in many UCCs is the belief that people with disabilities should be self-sufficent. Accomadation for them or helping them to participate is seen as a threat to the rest of the church. Better cut off them off, rather than helkp sahre the burden.

See, Graeme,  you do need an editor.   

  I think the best editorial of BF was Abbey Hoffman who called her "People Magazine" to her face on air.  I guess CBC and BF thought that people would think poorly of Hoffmann but no, he had only stated a truth.    We still live in a world where stories about Abby Hoffman outweigh whole novels by Ayn Rand or interviews by BF. So, that be interesting. 

That supper was almost forty years ago,  and I still remember it with a sort of horror.