Atlas Shrugged

"You have reached the blind alley of the treason you committed when you agreed that you had no right to exist. Once, you believed it was "only a compromise": you conceded it was evil to live for yourself, but moral to live for the sake of your children. Then you conceded that it was selfish to live for your children, but moral to live for your community. Then you conceded that it was selfish to live for your community, but moral to live for your country. Now, you are letting this greatest of countries be devoured by any scum from any corner of the earth, while you concede that it is selfish to live for your country and that your moral duty is to live for the globe. A man who has no right to life, has no right to values and will not keep them." -John Galt

Having spent 6 months reading this monster of a book, I find it only fitting to convey a few takeaways. If you have not read it, it is incredibly difficult to sum up an 1,100 page book. To try would be foolish. Take the below comments as thoughts and ideas as you read.

The plight of the industrialist has not changed. 
Modern society leans too often toward marginalizing the affects of the real game changers.  The men who built this country, the men who truly innovated, names like Rockefeller and Westinghouse, John Pierce and Barney Oliver... we pretend to think that we now deserve inherently the fruits of their invention as if we could have thought of it ourselves, or worse, that their innovations are now meaningless because they have been copied so often or enhanced through iterative improvement.

We must restore a sense of value in ones work. When an individual provides value to millions, or provides a lot of value to a few, they should reap the rewards of that value.  It is only fair for a successful person to be successful financially.  Too many people live under the false notion that their need dictates what they should be paid, either by an employer or by welfare. For a company or community or nation to be successful, people must add more value than they take.  For ever person who fails to do so, another must add that person's value without taking it.  Would that we would return to that ideology.

Our morality of selflessness
"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."

Ms. Rand is unapologetic in her lack of appreciation for selflessness. It is not an altogether undesirable position.  Is not the cry against the "greedy corporations" or "evil wall street" that they are living for their own sakes at the expense of other men? Can you simply add the second clause, nor ask another man to live for mine,  and make selfish ambition work?  Alternatively, is the total and utter pursuit of selflessness found in many religious circles really godliness?

One need only look to the critics of John Piper's Christian hedonism to find a visceral reaction against the idea that allowing yourself to be self-serving is evil. However, his position is not without support from some of the greats. CS Lewis writes: If there lurks in most modern minds the notion that to desire our own good and to earnestly hope for the enjoyment of it is a bad thing, I suggest that this notion has crept in from Kant and the Stoics and is no part of the Christian faith. Indeed, if we consider the unblushing promises of reward and the staggering nature of the rewards promised in the Gospels, it would seem that our Lord finds our desires, not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling around with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased. 

I believe that in either case the root evil is found in the idea of allowing or expecting another person to live for your benefit. To combat this evil, Ayn Rand proposes a society where you live fully and only for your own benefit and so long as you expect everyone else to be doing the same it will all work out.  I would propose that a less radical solution is possible, and far more realistic.  If every man would take the position that while still refusing to ask another man to live for their sake, they pursue adding more value than they need and consuming less than they make so that if they should succeed they are in a position materially and mentally to assist others and if they should fail, that another might show the same charity they were willing to give.

This moral code is consistent both with the selflessness required to avoid hedonism and fulfill our communal obligations to those less fortunate while acknowledging that the pursuit of our own good is right and honorable.


Politics
It would be easy to normalize this book into the political landscape of today, but doing so would not do the work justice. The complexity of Ayn Rand's pure capitalism approach is unrealistic, and while I would love to think that it could work, it won't. The libertarian in me would love to have the freedom to do whatever I wanted. However, its obvious that people are going to take advantage of others both by accepting what is unearned, or earning more than they should via others.  Short of a catastrophic meltdown akin to the book's version of events, human greed and lust for power will be an ever present force by which we need to have some measure of control and regulation. The only way to change that is through a return to love and respect for other individuals.  The best way I know to do that is a return to true godliness (not what we see in most of the Christian community today). No political ideology will change the root problem of man's evil.

Gun Control, Demystified

Or, We are more together than apart


With so much hate and divisiveness being used in this debate, my goal rooted in love, is to point out a few observations, hopefully build a framework for real dialog, and challenge each side to come together.

All gun control laws can be grouped into one of three categories. Laws that punish criminals, laws that attempt to limit criminals’ access to guns, and laws that attempt to limit everyone’s access to guns. (There is a fourth, laws that track all guns. This is a non-issue as no one has made any real headway in trying this, so we will leave it out of this discussion.)

The first, laws that punish criminals, is obvious. We have laws on the books for sentencing law breakers with time in prison, even the death penalty in some places.  The very basis for our criminal justice system is rooted in the idea that corrective discipline is normal and works.  It works as a deterrent to crime, and as a corrective system for those who have committed crime. The effectiveness of this model is outside of the scope of this discussion, but generally this is an area where people are in agreement. We want “easy wins” where we can make “real change” with "bi-partisan support"; this is where we can have it. Enforce and make stricter gun crime punishments.

The second, laws that stop criminals from getting guns, there is also large support from both sides. While I am disappointed at the NRA for not backing proposals in this category like universal background checks, etc., I am not surprised.  The NRA is a lobbying group, and you would expect them to take the far position.  However, more and more pro-gunners are following their lead and buying into this position of “give up nothing!” "I can sell my gun to anyone I want" just does not work today. As gun owners we need to recognize that we have a crime problem, and that we have a responsibility to limit access to criminals.

The last, laws that limit everyone’s guns, is where the majority of the division is happening.   On this topic, we are polarized.  Laws in this group include the so-called assault weapons ban, and the high capacity magazine ban.  The problem with these laws is that they are actually limiting the rights of law-abiding citizens.  Now those rights are limited all the time, and there is precedent to do so, but the negative reaction from the gun community is based on the idea that we see no real benefit to society as a result of these changes. I have discussed this at length, so I do not want to do so here.

The problem is that all of these topics are getting lumped into one big group of “upcoming gun control laws” and because we do not have the proper framework to discuss them, we fall into all or nothing discussions.

Instead, lets work to understand each proposed law.  Classify each in one of these categories. Universal background checks are not at all designed to limit law-abiding citizens access to guns, therefore we should support them.  Those who support banning certain guns need to understand that you are squarely in the third section which has dangers, and yelling about it wont help. If law abiding citizens are going to give up more of their rights, there needs to be a solid discussion on the benefits of doing so before you will convince anyone.  Educate yourself. Its hard for the gun community to take seriously calls to ban “assault weapons” when you still think they are “spraying bullets into a crowd.” Even better, show some measure of respect for the people that actually have knowledge of the topic. Their, our, opinion should matter to you because we own these devices, and we understand them. Recognize that this is and will be the hardest aspect of these types of proposals, and you should expect pushback. Ignoring that pushback puts you no better than the change nothing crowd.

If we come together, we can gain real traction on the first and second groups of laws.  If we have open and healthy discussions on the third, there may be some compromises that can be reached.   However, if we continue to argue from opposing viewpoints with all or nothing positions, we are no longer on the same team fighting for the same goal. We have instead embraced us versus them, battling each other, instead of crime.

On guns, God, love and hate.

Nothing is so clearly and poignantly evil than the murder of innocent lives.  Evil is rooted in hate. Hatred of self, hatred of others when fully realized leads to the most deplorable of evil acts.  Perhaps this is at the heart of the apostle’s letter when he says, “Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him” or in Jesus’ equating of murder to hatred in the sermon on the mount. 

The idea that at the root of murder is hate stands as a warning to us all.  When we allow ourselves to be filled with hate, we succumb to the evilest passions of our being.  To hate is to reject God and the message of our common depravity instead embracing our supposed goodness over the object of our hatred.  Hatred is the very antithesis to God, because God is love.

The recent communal discussion on guns and the role they play in our society has taken a significant turn toward hatred. With time passing farther away from the latest tragedy many pro-gun individuals feel free to express this hatred through mockery or disdain for anything or anyone who would ‘take our guns away.’ Similarly, still impassioned by the heinousness of this crime others are calling people lunatics, or wishing people rot in hell who simply believe their rights are being taken away. This too is rooted in the same hatred. 

It’s easy to hate. It’s our natural stance because we are evil. The sad irony is that the church who has supposedly been set free from evil control is leading the charge from both sides. 

Instead, choose Love.  Love your enemies. Pray for those who persecute you so that you may be sons of your father in heaven. If you love only those who love you what reward is in that?  Everyone does that. Its time for us to recognize that we must love one another in spite of our differences. We must realize that people are in different places, and have different ideas.  We must remove the idea that we are better then anyone else.

I can foresee the supposed hypocrisy in this statement. Am I not saying the same thing; that I am somehow better than those that have chosen to hate. I am not. I have done the same things. I have enjoyed the quiet ridicule of those who have no idea the difference between a M-16 and an AR-15. I have, at times, allowed the idea that because I may know more than others on this topic, I am somehow better then they are. However, I am not the standard, God is. His rule, his morality is the standard, and I am consistently trying to reject those ideas and replace them with love. That love may not lead to my changing my opinion on a topic, but it aught to change the way I interact with another person who holds a different idea. I have seen very little love. 

We are a deeply divided people, which means the light that shines from our choosing love instead of hate will shine brighter than ever. 

Open Letter to our State officials

Many individuals are concerned over the upcoming barrage of new gun legislations. Obviously, emotional responses are strong as people weigh the freedoms we have vs the real danger of crazies and criminals. We are too close to Newtown to not be deeply effected.

What I fear is that we have succumb to the polarization of us vs them.

For the gun rights folks, we fear our reduction in liberty and invoke the spirit of Henry Tucker who said: "[The second amendment] may be considered as the true [safeguard] of liberty. Wherever the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty is on the brink of destruction."

Our counterparts say that the death of innocent children is just such a pretext worth prohibiting liberty. Theirs is a powerful and palpable stance in these troubled days.

Obviously, there will be outspoken people from both extremes however, I believe that most constituents want realistic measures put in place that reduce crime. It is critical that we recognize this mutual goal together and find the common elements where we can come together. Without setting that framework, we will argue and fight and nothing positive will prevail.

My request, my challenge as you go to Hartford is to fight the root causes. Those are the issues with bi-partisan support.

Those root issues are weak families, weak community, weak morals, and a culture of death.

You want the Assault weapons ban in place? We already have it. You want magazine limits, they wont help, but go for it, or let Washington do it. But do not pat yourselves on the back when those are done because all you have done is slapped a bandaid on a bullet wound. Those are the simple, surface level issues. If CT is going to lead, we need to tackle how to restore strong families, communities and morals to our culture. We need to restore love and respect for every human being. We need to respect authority, serve those less fortunate, and ensure that people are free to talk about their problems with someone who loves them. I’m not sure how you legislate those issues. I have a few ideas, but that’s your job. However, simply banning a few guns is not enough. These deeper issues are what we desperately need resolved.

Newtown

So much has happened in the past week.  The Newtown shootings are on everyone's mind approaching Christmas.  We live close to the city and our church serves many from that school. Immediately after, I felt really prompted to declare this:

Evil is fighting, and I think I understand the game plan, for out of this tragedy we will place more restrictions on our people driving further division. We will place stronger locks on our doors, furthering the loss of community, and we will further outsource to our government the ugly business of working with the evil people around us. When the only fix to this is to restore our love and community to every person around us. Placing boundaries around ourselves is not the answer for evil will find a way through them. Restoring our love for one another, even, nay especially, those we find challenging, restoring a strong sense of community, and restoring the spiritual strength of God's moral standards is the only solution to these problems. We cannot rely on the government to do these things. Only the Church has the power and source of strength needed to rise above. We must stop the hate, the vitriol, and the obsession with earthly things and live our lives as if we are in a spiritual battle for the lives of individuals, because we are. That is no longer a cliche. Lives are at stake. Wake up church. Work in us, Lord. Start with me.

So far we have seen legislation for more gun control, talk of stronger doors in schools, and more mental health oversight from the government.

I too have, and expect to continue to engage discussions about practical politics, but I do not want to forget the main issue.  Without real community change on a spiritual level, all the politics in the world will not help. We need to keep this as the real front issue.  Fill us Lord, with your Spirit and have us engage in loving your creation.  

Love and sin and the Christian church

It would appear (at least by my facebook stream) that gay rights is the leading topic of the day, and that many of my Christian friends have decided that being gay today is basically akin to being black 60 years ago.

The running position is that the Bible does not talk about homosexuality, or that somehow those passages do not apply, and we cannot tell others how to live in this area. In 50 years we will look back and be ashamed that we had said, "We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit" because that sentiment is left to old guys who make great chicken.

We (and I am speaking to Christians at this point) fear, for sake of offending, calling sin, 'sin.'  This fear is justified.  The church is notoriously bad at finding a pet sin and responding really badly to that. If I were gay, I would fear the church. The immorality of not loving our fellow man is absolutely the same as being black 60 years ago and for that the church in general should be ashamed.

If you are reading this and you are gay, then the message I would want you to know is that you deserve to be loved by your fellow man (something Christians have failed at a lot), and the message of the Bible is that you are deeply loved by God, just as you are. His desire is to reveal himself to you and to engage in a relationship with you. If that is intriguing, pick up a Bible. Try starting with the book of John. There are churches where you are welcome.

The rest of this is a theological exercise which is small and unimportant in comparison to that greater truth.

To my fellow Christians, I would propose that this issue of calling sin, 'sin' is of higher importance than we put it.  The ability to simply dismiss a Christian tenant because its no longer popular with our culture is dangerous. Being jerks to people we disagree with is just as dangerous and needs to be addressed (just not in this post.)

There are a few key theological premises in order to continue:

Scripture is authoritative.
Scripture has the ability to define boundaries to our actions that we are then obligated to follow as Christians.

The first is critical, because for many, the idea that scripture is authoritative has fallen out of vogue. We run to our "Spirit lead" thoughts for our basis of morality. We ended up with many Christians on either side of the pendulum.  One side worshiping scripture in place of God, and the other listening only to their own sinful minds attempting to discern the "will of the Spirit." There must be an authoritative foundation on which to build our beliefs and to test the ideas we come up with. That foundation is Scripture. Scripture needs to have been given to us by God, and the contents of it (including Paul's writings) need to be authoritative. Without that, there is no basis for this discussion. You are free to think whatever your heart tells you is right. I don't trust my heart that much.

The second question should be obvious as well, however, there are those who accept the idea of the Bible as an old and outdated book that has no practical meaning to our lives. If that is true, then there is also no basis for the discussion.

Assuming then that in order to have this discussion there must be an agreement that scripture is authoritative and can set moral boundaries (to which crossing them is sin), that leads us to the question of what "sins" are sins, and specifically is homosexuality one of them.

If you really want all the verses, a google search can provide a plethora of verses on the Bible and homosexuality, but I would focus primarily on this passage:

Romans 1:18-32

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22  Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

There is so much here to unpack as we see a clear progression.

God gives truth. Man is unrighteous and therefore suppresses the truth.  The truth is plainly obvious, but by not honoring God, they become self focused in their thoughts, and in what they worship. God gives them up to their natural sinful bents (one of which is homosexuality). After so much time, they lose sight of the moral framework God established so much that they start giving approval to those who practice immorality.

There is not a single integrous reading of this scripture that does not take homosexuality and place it into a list of sinful practices that is against God's revealed plan for morality.  There is no way around it.  However! there is also no way around reading this passage and somehow placing homosexuality as some higher form of sin than any other.  Gossips, slanderers, boastful, heartless, ruthless.  These characteristics are equated to the same state of debased mindset as homosexuality.  We cannot therefore treat homosexuality differently than any other sin* without having that be simply our cultural lenses distorting our view of sin.  All sins are equal.

For way too long, we have allowed certain sins to be acceptable, while others are absolutely unacceptable in any form.

Let me illustrate with an example.  I knew a guy once who was a liar. He was deceitful all the time to the point where people defined him as such. He was so comfortable with lying that he did so even when it made no sense to. He taught a Sunday school class. If a gay couple walked into their church it would be a total uproar, but this guy was fine.  His sins were acceptable. Theirs was not.  Both are wrong.

Sin is sin is sin.  We all deal with sin issues in our lives. A Christian recognizes they are sinning and allows the Holy Spirit to convict them, asks forgiveness, and attempts to change the immoral behavior. But when a Christian moves from "I am struggling with this sin" to living freely and openly in that sin, then something has happened. That difference is described in verse 24, 26, and 28 as God giving them up to their sinful desires. At that point, the person is living in unrepentant sin.  Does not matter if that sin is pride, strife, gossip, or homosexuality.

The reaction from other Christians should be the same.

So in order to understand how we should react to a gay person we should use a little golden rule tactic. Pick the sin you are most comfortable with from the list above. For me its envy. I struggle with a fair share of envy, so I can relate. Then ask the following questions:

Can a person be born with a natural bent toward envy?
If a person tells me they struggle with envy, would I feel a visceral reaction to them? How would I respond? Should I love them or hate them.
If I see that a person is envious, should I be disgusted by them, or love them in spite of their sin?
Would a person who is envious visiting my church for the first time feel welcome?
If it was obvious that the person had a serious problem with envy, would we let them serve as leaders?

Now, switch all the envy's to homosexualilty and while I will not tell you how to answer these questions, I can only say your answers must match.

You see, its time to stop picking and choosing our sins, and to get serious about holiness across the board.  That means removing the cultural stigmas of certain sins while getting serious about the lesser sins that we allow to grow in our hearts because we think they are no big deal.


* There is one caveat that sexual sin differs from other sin in that it directly involves the defiling of the Holy Spirit's temple (I Cor 6:18) but this would mean that homosexuality is a sexual sin akin to fornication or pornography, etc. 

One of my favorite pictures

I have some friends, some honest friends, and honest friends are few; 

My pipe of briar, my open fire, A book that's not too new.

Robert Service