*

Somewhere in the seventies, or the sixties, we started expecting to be happy. I think we have lost the old knowledge that happiness is over-ratedthat in a way life itself is overrated. We are the first generations of man that actually expected to find happiness here on earth, and our search has caused such unhappiness. The reason: if you do not believe in another, higher world, if you believe only in the flat material world around you, if you believe that this is your only chance at happiness--if that is what you believe, then you are more than disappointed when the world does not give you a good measure of its riches, you are in despair. Peggy Noonan Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

*

My advice to a school of business management is to teach the business manager to give unlimited love and he or she will be more successful." Sir John M. Templeton

Education which stops with efficiency may prove the greatest menace to society. The most dangerous criminal may be the man gifted with reason, but with no morals. Martin Luther King

*Wall Street says: split yourself off from your values and invest strictly for profit. We say: invest with as much integrity as possible. An uncomfortable state of dissonance occurs when our actions are out of alignment with our hearts. It is possible to live with such inconsistencies only by putting on blinders--by maintaining that an investor has no responsibility for the actions of the companies in which his or her money is invested. But such conflicts are real, and no amount of denial can make them disappear. Investing With Your Values

*

* The investor likes to think of himself as a force for honesty and transparency, but he has proved in recent years that he prefers a lucrative lie to an expensive truth. And hes very good at letting corporate management know it. Investors, in their shortsightedness, encourage companies to neglect their social responsibilities. Michael Lewis The Irresponsible Investor New York Times Magazine June 6, 2004

* March 2009

*Those who buy counterfeit designer goods project a fashionable image at a fraction of the price of the real thing. You might think that would make them feel rather smug about themselves. But an intriguing piece of research published in Psychological Science suggests the opposite: wearing fake goods makes you feel a fake yourself, and causes you to be more dishonest in other matters than you would otherwise be. The Economist June 26, 2010

*

Religion is not some kind of psychic exercise that occasionally offers a transcendent experience. It either shapes ones lifeall of ones lifeor it vanishes, leaving behind anxious, empty souls that no psychotherapy can reach. Irving Kristol The Wall Street Journal

*It is a curious fact that as we leave the most primitive peoples of the world, we find the economic insecurity of the individual many times multiplied. The solitary Eskimo, Bushman, Indonesian, or Nigerian peasant, left to his or her own devices, will survive a considerable time. Living close to the soil or to his or her animal prey, such an individual can sustain his own-more rarely, her own- life. But when we turn to the New Yorker or the Chicagoan, we are struck by exactly the opposite situation, by a prevailing ease of material life coupled with an extreme dependence on others. Robert Heilbroner The Making of Economic Society

*Feeling down, anxious? Your problem may be that fat bank account. New research says the hell-bent pursuit of money can be hazardous to your mental health. It debunks the popular belief that having a goal, any goal, is psychologically beneficial. People who value extrinsic goals are more prone to behavioral problems and physical ailments...The gold diggers interviewed scored far lower on measures of vitality and self -actualization...Theres no drawback in having money. You just need to remember the things that truly provide meaning in life.Forbes

*

The churchs often-dismissive response to the laypersons optimistic desire to integrate faith and career cannot be justified. In fact, this attitude may be the largest act of self-marginalization mainstream churches have ever engaged in. Professor Laura Nash Harvard University

*Sweating The Small Stuff

Many people think the church asks too much of its members. In reality, it asks too little Frankly, many churches have dumbed down church until it has no meaning at all. We are afraid to ask men for a great commitment, so they think were after their wallets, not their hearts.

*

While many Americans are no doubt overspent, the possibility of most people drowning in credit card debt as an explanation for lack of generous religious and charitable financial giving lacks empirical supportOne commonly cited statistic in the media is that the average American owes more than $8,000 in credit card debt. Numbers like that are inflated by a relatively small number of people in huge debt. The median balance was $2,200.* That itself represents only three percent of all debts held by Americans. *Federal Reserve Boards Survey of Consumer Finances 2004

*The steady drop in donations, volunteering, and personal involvement is a direct result of a spiritual crisis -- a crisis caused in large part by the clergys failure to address the vital relationships between faith and money the solution is not simply to talk more about the financial needs of the church -- 30 percent said they would actually give less money if churches talked more about finances than they do now. The answer is to talk about the broader relationships between faith, work, money, giving, the poor, and economic justice.Robert WuthnowThe Crisis In The Churches: Spiritual Malaise, Fiscal Woe

*

Part Three:

Atheistic Challenges to Our Well-Being

*Americas New Secular, Economic Religion We will give people a faith--a positive, clear and consistent system of belief.

*

*Ayn Rand--the heroine of Americas libertarian right--described her philosophy as the concept of man as a noble 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. The Reagan presidency provided opportunities for a few objectivists to try their hand at their most hated institution: government. The most celebrated Randist even survived the passing of the Reagan years. Alan Greenspan was an acolyte of Rands in the 1960s. The Economist January 1994

*Rand was blazing a trail distinct from the broader conservative movement, as indicated by the title of her second nonfiction book, The Virtue of Selfishness. Whereas traditional conservatism emphasized duties, responsibilities, and social interconnectedness, at the core of the right-wing ideology that Rand spearheaded was a rejection of moral obligations to others. Jennifer Burns, Ph.D. Goddess of the Market; Ayn Rand and the American Right

*

For her, government was nothing more than licensed robbery and altruism just an excuse for power-grabbing. The Economist October 24, 2009

*

I believe in complete, laissez faire, full, unregulated capitalism--not mixed economy. Ayn Rand

*Socialism Capitalism MarxRand No Personal ResponsibilityNo Social Responsibility U.S. * Moses/Jesus Both Personal & Social Responsibility

*I believe it is simply wrong to maintain that God and the Bible favor one modern form of economic organization, such as capitalism or socialism, over the other. The Bible clearly teaches concepts that should move the most conservative and liberal readers far beyond their comfort zones and far above worldly approaches. Gary Moore

* The search for the third way must begin by rejecting all forms of political ideology. Prospect Magazine

*

Libertarianism is a philosophy of radically limited government. It is attractive to those well-off professionals who have nothing in common with the religious right but would just like to be left alone. The libertarians have also replaced the Marxists as the worlds leading utopia builders. E. J. Dionne

*Source: The Economist

*Source: Forbes, 10/13/08, from Federal Reserve $12 TrillionHousehold Checking, Savings & Treasury Holdings

*

Within the rich world, where destitution is rare, countries where incomes are more evenly distributed have longer-lived citizens and lower rates of obesity, delinquency, depression and teenage pregnancy than richer countries where wealth is more concentrated. The Economist February 28, 2009

*In a sign of increasing inequality in the U.S., the richest 1% of Americans in 2006 garnered the highest share of the nations adjusted gross income for two decades, and possibly the highest since 1929, according to Internal Revenue Service dataMeanwhile, the average tax rate of the wealthiest 1% fell to its lowest level in at least 18 years. The groups share of the tax burden has risen, though not as quickly as its share of income. The Wall Street Journal July 23, 2008

* Source: Private Sector Development Blog, 3/10/10

*

* Wall Street Journal, August 7, 2010

*The top 5% of Americans by income account for 37% of all consumer outlays. The bottom 80% account for 39.5%. It is no surprise the rich spend so much, since they earn a disproportionate share of income. The top 10% of earners captured about half of all income as of 2007The data may be a further sign that the U.S. is becoming a plutonomy--an economy dependent on the spending and investing of the wealthy. The Wall Street Journal August 7, 2010

*

Annual Income # People Over $15,000 800 Million $1,500 - $15,000 1.5 BillionUnder $1,500 4 Billion Source: Capitalism at the Crossroads

*

*If you had $2,161 in 2000, you belonged to the wealthier half of the human race Wealth is shared much less equitably than income; more than half of it is held by just 2% of the worlds adults. The distribution is equivalent to a world of ten people, in which one had $1,000 and the other nine had $1 eachMany people in poor countries have next-to-nothing; but quite a lot of people in rich countries have less than that; their liabilities exceed their assets. The bottom half of Swedes have a collective net worth of zero. That said, the Nordic countries seem to thrive without much personal wealth. The Economist December 9, 2006

*

*February 7, 2009 Selfishness is a Virtue

*Early Wall Street

*Later-day Wall Street

*

My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue, and, above all, I do not consider it a moral dutyWhat I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue. Ayn Rand Playboy Interview

*How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortunes of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it. Adam Smith Opening sentence of The Theory of Moral Sentiments

*

Success is nice and Ive had some and enjoyed it, but so what? It isnt sufficient reason to get up in the morning. Its not good enough to live forThis is all an illusion, a lovely tender illusion. Were all running around being busy and doing important things. But this has nothing to do with anything. Up there God and the angels are looking down and laughing, and not unkindly. They just find us touching and dizzy. Peggy Noonan

*

It is only in emergency situations that one should volunteer to help strangers, if its in ones power. Ayn Rand

*Referring to the disastrous advice given by a [major Wall Street firm] who sucked nearly $100 million in commissions from Orange County, Greenspan declared that both brokers and their customers should be unburdened by any perceived need to take into consideration the interest of their counterparties. It sounds dull enoughuntil you realize what hes driving at. Greenspan expressed that same radical belief more clearly during the 1960s in a book of essays assembled by his mentor, the novelist and free-market zealot, Ayn Rand. Worth Magazine

*Michael Milken grew up wanting to be rich, he confesses, and by the time he was in his 30s he had more money than he could ever hope to spend on himself. It was at this point that Milken faced a crisis of purpose. Most people derive dignity, depth and purpose by prevailing in the struggle for existence. What happens when this struggle ends? Milken faced a spiritual crisis at a young age that many of his newly affluent counterparts are encountering today. Forbes October 11, 1999

*

Ayn Rand filled in the ideas of Aristotle. Its a whopping competitive advantage. I personally believe objectivism will be the dominant philosophy in this country in 25 years. John A. Allison IV Chairman of BB&T Sunday Business New York Times August 2, 2009

*Trust In Business

Peggy Noonan, one of those baby boomers who has done her own soul-searching, has eloquently suggested that if you expect heaven on earth by making money, you are likely to be in despair as your frame of reference regarding heaven, or perfection, is shaped by the Forbes 400 and so on. That is, while we all have a chance of gaining heaven, only 400 of us will ever make the Forbes list. Its been said that departmentalized education usually produces compartmentalized thinking. We are taught to put morality in the religion department and profits in the business department. So long before the Great Recession, the John Templeton Foundation held a symposium on spiritual capital at Harvard. It held its quarterly board meeting there the next day. Several leaders of the school were invited to attend. When reporting on the symposium, Gary asked a top leader of Harvard if he could share the advice that Sir John repeatedly offered to academic leaders, which Dr. King obviously seconded. The leader confessed he could not, despite the fellow at the head of the table. And of course, most of Wall Street has not exactly encouraged us to think about the many ways our money may not be where our beliefs and/or mouths are. Again, we see that this author connects that fact with the anxieties many of us feel about current and future conditions. Being a Christian in this devout money culture is quite difficult. The Wall Street Journal once surveyed some our nations leading Christian financial planners and discovered their recommendations are often little different from those of secular planners and Christian planners use the same investment vehicles as secular planners. Again, the good news is some who once actively resisted the faith-based investing movement have recently gotten quite enthusiastic about it, which is normal for the newly converted. But even today, if you go to the web site of our nations most popular Christian financial celebrity, it will discourage you from considering ethical and/or faith-based mutual funds. If we cant know the future, the only way to control it is to co-create it. That should be the priority of any Christian anyway. In his masterful classic The Screwtape Letters, C.S. Lewis had the senior devil named Screwtape counsel his nephew Wormwood that it is their job to keep humans focused on what might happen to us in the future while its Gods job to keep us focused on what were doing today. Even a modern, high-tech economy still reaps what it sows, regardless of how much we worry about the weather. Sadly, this noted observer of Wall Street has reminded us that while we investors have been worrying about gathering storms, we havent been paying too much attention to what were planting today with our investments. When we worry about the future without changing what were doing today, a sense of hopelessness sets in. That is likely a primary reason Christians suffer depression rather than joy. Studies suggest that faking it in order to be something we arent is emotionally impoverishingand can even make you more dishonest in other areas. Yet from the time we are born, human nature, and those humanists who advocate it, suggest we simply have to be prettier, smarter, richer and so on, often to point they encourage unhealthy growth. An observer for The Wall Street Journal has noted how less than complete devotion to ones faith can cause deep psychological problems. To put it in political terms, it might be the psychological equivalent of seeking U.S. citizenship while knowing you are actually a foreign spy. That is, theres a lot of stress and anxiety in living double lives. Focusing on wealth gets even more problematic. As this prominent economic historian has noted, increasing wealth may actually increase economic anxiety. Capitalism distances us from what we truly need to exist as it provides for our wants and desires. Meanwhile, the individualism that wealth encourages makes us more distrustful of others, who we increasingly need as our professions grow more specialized. A study cited by Forbes, which is certainly no opponent of people growing wealthier, suggests we nuance the difference in legitimate self-interest and problematic selfishness. It verified that a single-eyed focus on getting richer may be making some of us more than a bit nuts. Perhaps God gave us two eyes so we can keep one out for ourselves and the other out for the welfare of our neighbors. Sadly, you wont get much help from even the institutional churches that have the heritages to know that enriching reality. As studied and documented for many years by Laura Nash at Harvard, the church has too often been of little help to businesspeople who are actively seeking a more integrated, or holy, approach to life. In fact, they may actually be a hindrance. For example, while many denominations practice more responsible money management with institutional money, very few teach the principles to members. And not being able to speak intelligently about money in a money culture makes our clergy as relevant and effective as a missionary in China who cant speak Chinese. If our churches do not help us look at the root of all evil, its inevitable they will help us to major in the minors of life. Its also a reason church membership is growing more feminine, even though its leadership remains male as many men not particularly gifted or interested in business become clergy. But as they live in a world of exchange, businesspeople are particularly sensitive to someone wanting to get in their pockets without offering anything in return. The clergy may not be able to help businesspeople with their narrowest business problems but they should be able to help them with the spiritual issues of modern business. At least, they should be able to find an experienced businessperson in their congregations who can do so and empower that person to act on the churchs behalf. Businesspeople also have a sixth sense about economic integrity, particularly as it relates to that old saying that liars figure and figures lie. So when the only talk about money in the church is about giving to the church, and supposed issues that prevent giving to our churches, businesspeople see the church as being as self-centered as the worst businesses. And most informed businesspeople read enough financial publications to know the financial issues often taught in church have been blown out of proportion, while true issues, like the greed may have helped cause the Great Recession, are ignored. Robert Wuthnow is a well-known religious sociologist at Princeton who has studied pastors attitudes toward money. After one particularly exhaustive study, he concluded the answer is not to talk more about giving, which even Adam Smith noted is a terribly important matter for spiritual well-being, but to speak more often about wealth in the more holistic fashion we are doing here today.

Its time for another break; but in the next session well discuss the primary atheistic challenge to your spiritual and financial well-being. Weve accepted responsibility for the social damage done by secularism and extrinsic religion. Now lets look at how a new atheistic religion that may have played a major role in the credit crisis and Great Recession.

This is a stamp honoring a woman named Ayn Rand. She once stated she wanted to be remembered as the greatest enemy of traditional religion, and particularly Christianity, ever. She noticed most Christians might believe Christian morality but dont have enough faith to trust their lives to it. So she created a humanistic religion. As the old saying goes: even Satan believes in God. Rand said we could have faith in the idea that the moral purpose of our lives is to be productive, or make money. So her new religion appealed to our cultural elite who were entering college during the late sixties and early seventies. While relatively few seem to have heard about Rand, its difficult to over-estimate her economic influence today. The Library of Congress once conducted a survey of the most influential books. In what might be a metaphor for America, it said the most influential is still the Bible but the second is Rands Atlas Shrugged. Thats quite remarkable as they basically advocate the opposite morality, particularly economic morality. In the early nineties, The Economist listed the most influential economic thinkers in the world. While many Christian leaders were focused on Hillary Clinton, who is a Methodist, and so on during that period, Rand was the only woman listed. It described her as the heroine of Americas libertarian right, meaning those who want to get rid of virtually all government. She thought of mankind as being noble, rather than fallen and in need of spiritual transformation, as Reformed theology does. Importantly, she rejected the Christian Golden Rule as she believed in pursing your own happiness. She wore a pin in the shape of a dollar sign, rather than the Cross or Star of David, as she wanted us to selfishly make money rather than sacrificially love each other. And she rejected the notion that hundreds of generations of Judeo-Christian thought leaders before us might have revealed any sort of moral absolute. Her thinking was shaped by Aristotle and Nietzche but she thought we could all reason things out on our own. The Economist noted that Greenspan had studied Rands ideas. Now we simply have to discuss politics for a minute. Its terribly important to understand the difference in a political conservative and a libertarian. As stated by the author of a wonderful recent book about Rand, conservatives respect what weve learned in the past and are slow to make changes, essentially preferring political and economic evolution to revolution. They are therefore very concerned about reversing thousands of years of Judeo-Christian moral thought in a few decades. Not so the libertarians on the far right end of the political spectrum. These Objectivists, as Rands disciples are known, wont be happy until government is gone; not simply limited as conservatives desire, but gone. Reflecting the Middle East from which Western thinking evolved, our wealth is held in three sectors: the private, the public and the non-profit.

Karl Marx thought he could create utopia on earth by getting rid of private property and charities, leaving all wealth management to government elites. Like Plato, Marx thought bureaucrats would save us.

Rand thought the opposite. She wanted to get rid of government and charities, leaving wealth management in the hands of a few CEO-type elites of superior intellect. They would essentially be our human saviors, as modeled by her fictional hero John Galt. To be clear, America is not, and has never been, a capitalist economy. It has been a mixed economy with primarily private enterprise but some governmental activity. As we will detail later, The Economist says that ratio today is approximately 65% private and non-profit related and 35% governmental. But its very important to understand that Rands words complete and full suggest her disciples will never be happy until business controls all economic life. Gary Moore realized after growing disenchanted with both politics and Wall Street and contemplating seminary, that the Judeo-Christian tradition had advocated a reality quite different than Marx or Rand.

He later discovered the political search for a so-called third way was seriously underway in Europe, particularly at the London School of Economics. It had influenced Tony Blair, who influenced Bill Clinton, who influenced George W. Bush to develop compassionate conservatism. The problem with that approache however was, like Marx and Rand, it also essentially focused on the material and ignored the spiritual dimensions of life.In essence, Judeo-Christian morality teaches that mankind was created for freedom. And yes, that means, as the Hebrews knew, they had to escape the political bondage of Pharaoh. Yet its also true, as argued in later books of the Bible, that mankind can also suffer economic bondage, as those living in bondage to student debt, credit cards, mortgages and consumerism know all too well. That suggested to Gary that both socialism and capitalism is structurally deficient from a theological perspective. Then he read an article that said the third way always fails as faith in human leaders always erodes eventually. At the risk of sounding like a televangelist emotionally exhorting us to turn to God, perhaps its quite rational that our economy truly does need a non-human moral authority to act like a matrix structure, or informal structure overlaying formal structures, to hold it all together. After all, thats precisely what Marx and Rand also offered the world.

That means we have to think quite differently about politics, rejecting the simplistic notion that we can only choose between left and right. Hence Garys search for a spiritualized third way, which he calls stewardism to reflect its Judeo-Christian roots. In essence, it might be more reflective of the Puritan ethic that built America than what weve seen among our cultural elites lately. Importantly, the word Puritan is often associated with its excesses regarding sexual morality, and perhaps rightly so, just as we seem preoccupied with sex today. But weve already heard from John Bogle, the founder of Vanguard, who identified economic immorality as even more pervasive. This is where a dose of Puritanism, minus the legalism and excesses, might be enriching. Christianity has long thought it would create a Kingdom of God on earth. When that will happen is debated. But it requires the work of the Holy Spirit, meaning it requires spiritual transformation. So it should never be confused with human approaches to utopia building. When Marx and Rand got rid of religion, they essentially agreed we humans can do it on our own. Perhaps tellingly, their human minds thought it could be done in absolutely opposing ways.

History has taught us all about the misery that Marxs thought about a worker-led utopia caused. But few seem to yet understand the potential pain caused by Rands dreams of an elite-led utopia. For example, since 1980, her belief that the CEO-type John Galts of our world can save the rest of us may have played a major role in steadily increasing the concentration of income and wealth in our country. Today, corporations are sitting on a record amount of cash. Yet it is in historical proportion with the amount of money they have borrowed from us. That means they control a far larger amount of our wealth than before Rand may have influenced policy makers. Necessarily, our governments and charities have a lower percentage of our working capital, as does the working class. Of course, that begs the question of when, even if, the typical consumer will have the money to buy what the corporations produce. In short, unbalanced philosophies produce unbalanced economies.

Several studies and measures make it pretty clear that America has grown more and more unequal during recent decades. For example, the Gini Index measures income inequality in America. It has been rising steadily since 1980, as have our concerns about many social pathologies. For many years, it has been thought by even Christian ministries, especially those that help the indebted who are struggling, that there is not enough wealth in America. In reality, that may simply confirm the old saying that we dont see things as they are, but as we are. As evidenced by this chart from Forbes, as the credit crisis and Great Recession took hold, there was enough money on the sidelines to buy all the stocks in America. The problem, from the perspective of the indebted, was that it was unusually concentrated in the hands of the affluent and corporations, which Ayn Rand would have applauded of course. Its somewhat ironic that one very real giant that does threaten us is some of us are spiritually threatened by what has been called affluenza. Then all of us are threatened by the giant of income inequality, which has recently become as large as it was in 1929. Even Henry Ford understood he could sell more cars if he paid workers enough to buy them.

One of the ironies of Christian conservatives wanting to grow the economic pie even larger rather than divide it more evenly is that inequality has been directly correlated to many social pathologies. For example, social conservatives who are pro-growth might notice that teenage pregnancies, and therefore abortions in all likelihood, are encouraged by inequality. Thats one reason we need to see the bigger picture and not grow too focused on single issues, like economic growth. Even The Wall Street Journal made this confession as the Great Recession began:

(Read)

This is a chart of the percent of income that the top 1% of earners get in the developed countries. As you can see, America is the most unequal, often by a large amount. This is likely one reason Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have encouraged their fellow billionaires to give to charity. Still, we should be aware that if these billionaires leave half their estates to charity in the form of foundations, and those foundations simply give to elite colleges and such, it might do relatively little for the average American. And as this chart demonstrates, the average American can use some help. Since Randist ideas began to dominate our economy, the very wealthy have done quite well while the average Americans income has been quite stagnant.

Of course, Jesus once denied a request to divide wealth between brothers. St. Paul also said that those who do not work shall not eat. Apparently, their jobs were to teach us to love one another as ourselves and it is the job of our God-given hearts, minds and souls to determine what that means in the political economy. We are simply saying that while statistics suggest the American pie is large enough for everyone to have more than an adequate piece, its also apparent that some arent getting one, rightly or wrongly. Of course, that means the top 5% of earners have been consuming a larger and larger share of our goods and services. According to The Wall Street Journal, our economy is now quite dependent on the spending of the affluent. The top 5% of Americans now spend almost as much as the bottom 80%. While that may be a moral and political concern, it simply must be an economic concern when so many cannot afford to buy the things an economy produces. Yet wages are even more unequal around our world. This is a chart of our blessings compared to those of our fellow humans.

(Read)Turning from income to accumulated wealth, we should also understand this chart. The citizens of the red nations, like America and Canada, which are virtually one nation for economic purposes, have average wealth over $50,000 per capita. The blue nations of Africa and India have less than $2,000.

The big picture is that 2% of the worlds people own 50% of the worlds wealth. In other words, the ownership of wealth is far more unequal than income. This is an amazing statement from The Economist magazine. For the first time in history, economics has advanced to the point that we can estimate the financial net worth of the average person on earth. As our new millennium began, that was estimated to be $2,161. Let me repeat that, the net worth of the average human in the year 2000 was $2,161.

For those worried about the socialization of America simply because it will result in less wealth, and there are good reasons to worry about socialization, The Economist detailed that one-half of Swedes have zero net wealth yet it continues to thrive. We would also note that studies suggest the Swedes are among the happier people on earth. So there must be more important things for us to worry about, like reclaiming the virtues that truly assure our freedoms. Some observers believe Rands new religion is a major reason for our increasing inequality. That religion was essentially captured in this cartoon of a boss exhorting his employees: Lets devote ourselves to something bigger than we are: money! Rand essentially told us we are human doings motivated by making money rather than human beings motivated by love. That might sound odd but let me ask you two very important questions:

1) Why do most people work where they do? Is it where they can best love God and neighbor, as Christianity teaches, or where they can make the most money, as Rand taught?

2) Why do most people invest where they do? Is it where it is reflective of Judeo-Christian morality or where it will make the most money?

Most pastors understand we live in a post-Christian nation. What they havent told us is that weve been in an increasingly capitalist nation, though that too has been mixed, or pluralistic. One of Rands most influential books was Selfishness is a Virtue. Its important to understand that Nietzsche, who proclaimed the death of God, or Judeo-Christian morality, left it to future philosophers to develop an alternative. Rand wanted to be that alternative.

When Nietzsche endeavored to finish God off, one of the tools he chose was to turn the Christian virtues into values. The reason is everyone has values. Rand valued money. But she hated the Christian virtues. So when she had the chance, she replaced the Christian virtue of loving ones neighbor as thyself with selfishness. This Wall Street Journal headline that ran after the credit crisis and worst of the Great Recession shows how seriously many on Wall Street still believe her teachings.

Importantly, Rand taught that altruism, or selflessness, is the primary Christian economic virtue. It isnt. The second Great Commandment to love neighbor as self actually reflects what is known as self-interest rightly understood. Its like gaining a safer road by sacrificing half of it to your fellow drivers. When Jesus said to sell what we have and give it to the poor, he was speaking to what the scriptures called his little flock of Mother Teresa types. The idea that selfishness is a virtue and we should not worry about our neighbors had a profound effect on Wall Street. Before 1980, Wall Street mostly served as a motor, pushing money from those who have it to those with good ideas who needed it. Everyone, including Wall Street, benefited. But a major concern of Congress after the credit crisis leading to the Great Recession was the ways some investment firms had found to selfishly siphon off some of the money flow, in ways possibly harmful to American business and society.

For example, the July 17, 2010 issue of The Economist stated: It will be up to regulators to ensure that any changes in Goldman [Sachs] approach are not merely cosmetic. Its trading and principal-investment businesses now generate a whopping 80% of its net revenues; the share is just 45% at Morgan Stanley.Critics suggest one reason the stock market has gone nowhere for investors the past decade is firms like Goldman could have been not only been skimming the cream, but some milk. Like The Economist, they argue capitalism is far too important to leave to the capitalists. Still, we separate from The Economist when arguing only government can solve the problem. We believe all shareholders also need to accept responsibility when investing in companies that might kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. That entails looking beyond quarterly profit reports.

Rand also wasnt a strong advocate of charity. In fact, America once conducted a Presidents Conference on Volunteerism. It was chaired by General Colin Powell. It was actually protested by Objectivistis carrying signs that said: Read Atlas Shrugged.

To put it simply, Rand believed and taught that every man is an island when it comes to financial well-being. Yet Judeo-Christian spirituality has always claimed we need to give rather than simply get, as noted by the supposedly self-interest obsessed Adam Smith, the father of modern economics. Smith actually rose to fame by writing The Theory of Moral Sentiments, which most financial types avoid as they read The Wealth of Nations. Reading both suggests Smith acknowledged self-interest as an economic motivator in Wealth but also acknowledged in Theory that self-interest must not be allowed to deteriorate into pure selfishness. In a heavenly bit of writing, Peggy Noonan has noted that is not only true when practicing philanthropy, but in life in general. Its not difficult to see how this individualism weakened our traditional ethic towards our fellow Americans, particularly on Wall Street.

Virtually all of us are strangers to the bankers and mutual and hedge fund managers who manage most of our money. We are strangers to the syndicate managers of Wall Street who structure our stock and bond deals, our limited partnerships and so on. It might even be noted that before he went to prison, junk bond king Michael Milken, who reportedly spent his time in prison re-reading Ayn Rand, took good care of his clients for whom he issued bonds. He knew them. It was all those strangers who bought the bonds who didnt fare quite as well. The irony is that the less the disciples of Rand care about our interests, the more we distrust the capitalism that Rand loved and advocated. This passage from Worth magazine is not directed at any investment firm but to vividly describe how the selfishness advocated by Rand may have affected you as an investor. While Greenspan never made such selfishness official policy, I believe influence may still trickle down among those charged with enforcing our securities laws. And when they believe the guy at the top doesnt believe brokers have any responsibilities to their clients, it may shape how enthusiastically they write and enforce our laws.

The irony is that Christian leaders would be very politically vocal if a judge was nominated who holds a social philosophy diametrically opposed to Judeo-Christian morality. And yes, Rand taught abortion is a moral right. Yet those same leaders, wittingly or unwittingly, helped Greenspan remain in power for many years. Boomers, who are so much better off financially than their parents were at the same age, in particular seem to be having the same problem with selfishness that Milken did before he was sentenced to prison: a deep lack of true meaning and purpose in their lives. Like Mike, many are futilely focused on making even more money. This is another example of how her morality appeals to the leaders of American business, particularly the financial sector. Despite what you are about to hear about Rands role in the Great Recession, one of Americas most influential bankers continues to donate considerable money to spreading her ideas in our schools. We may no longer be able to teach Judeo-Christian ideas about wealth management, but he can Rands. So he believes Rands philosophy will dominate America in twenty-five years.

The irony is that when everyone takes care of number one, which is what personal responsibility without a balancing social responsibility is, then no one trusts anyone else. Then some lend to those who might be less than credit worthy and that further hurts confidence. And when no one trusts anyone else to be responsible or prudent, they dont lend their money to anyone else. And we have a credit crisis. Which then turns into a Great Recession. And its not all that difficult to imagine what might then happen if we dont see the error of our ways and change.