Today I quit being a Christian. I'm out. I remain committed to Christ as always but not to being "Christian" or to being part of Christianity. It's simply impossible for me to "belong" to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. For ten years, I've tried. I've failed. I'm an outsider. My conscience will allow nothing else.Then, a few minutes later, she added:
...In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen.Rice, who has often been at odds with the church over social issues, grew up in a devout Catholic household, but left the church when she was 18. In 1998, she returned to the Christian faith, and has since written many books influenced by Christianity (including the Christ the Lord series).
My initial reaction to this was a positive one--I share many of Rice's frustrations with what the American church has come to represent. Then a co-worker wisely pointed out that this frustration requires a very narrow view of what being a Christian means, and expressing it in this way may simply add fuel to the "culture wars," rather than transcending them.
So, agree with Anne Rice or not, what's your take? Can an announcement like this from such a public figure lead to anything positive? Or is it just another divisive voice in an arena that needs peacemakers?
Login to comment
Alternate Login
Use your social media account to login.
Login with your ReFrame account
Comments (52)
If she really is a believer, the Holy Spirit will not let her go on her own. He'll draw her back to the Body. Prayers for her.
As I hinted at in the post, I don't buy the notion that Anne Rice is completely severing all ties with all of Christianity. It seems more like a falling out with a specific group of Christians--namely, the outspoken, fundamentalist, divisive group that is becoming more and more visible in the United States.
She uses very broad language (I'm guessing, in order to make a "splash") but I don't believe she means it quite so broadly as the language would suggest. There are many, many Christians (myself included) who are right there with her in refusing to be anti-gay, anti-feminist, anti-artificial birth control, anti-Democrat, etc. So in that way, she isn't a lone follower--she is still part of a Christian community.
If her words are at all true, rather than justify, explain or qualify them, we should just bow our heads and weep. What kind of a bride are we?
We're going to be quarrelsome, we're going to be hostile, we're going to be disputatious. We need to try not to, of course, but we won't be able to get it out of our systems entirely. When you take the focus off Christ and look for humanity to be righteous on its own, of course you're going to be disappointed. Praise God that our righteousness is not dependent on us! Prayers for her, indeed.
Are you saying God is not able to produce a peculiar people?
The fear of the promise land!
We are predestined to be godly and God does not fall short.
The Bible heartly endorses the role of women in the church from Junia the Apostle mentioned in Romans to the many women ministry teams, prophets and teachers Paul mentions. I can understand Ann’s dismay at the Roman Catholic Church’s inability to recognize the equal priesthood of all believers. The exclusively male priesthood and it rejection of marriage is creating a toxic environment that fosters sexual perversions. The pentecostal wing of christianity, the fastest growing segment of the Church worldwide, has ordained women pastors for many decades. The Bible is neither Republican nor Democrat. And the more I read, the more I am convinced it is philosophically pro-science and is not a textbook on the particulars of creation.
Christianity is not a belief system, it is a living relationship with a personal God who is present and accessible in our space and time. The Holy Spirit, who is our daily companion, actively distributes His charismatic gifts to all who will receive them and over time this intimate relationship produces character growth that the Bible calls fruit.
As GK Chesterton says, Christianity has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found difficult and left untried. I spent my first 20 years knowing about Him, and the last 40 years coming to know Him. I’m hoping that now that Ann Rice has been rightly disappointed by sectarian cultural christianity she will press in to know Him and search out others that know Him as well.
If you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name.
1 Peter 4:16
Before we criticize her and others (so many friends on my list) for "jumping ship" out of frustration. may we realize that not everyone can fight or struggle or lead, but need the encouragement and healing, the community of the church. If all that "being Christian" turns out to be on a daily or weekly basis is having to be defensive, continually the apologist, where is the healing and the support? I assume Ms. Rice will become a reclusive and extremely private believer, like many who refuse to have their faith be politicized or a point of debate. If our churches have become places where the gospel merely proof-texts a political rant, people will and should leave. It is up to church leadership to be faithful to good preaching/teaching/worship, for sake of the members.
- Anti-gay - Perhaps the most divisive issue for the Church is taking a stance on not supporting the homosexual lifestyle while trying to love people. Should be no different than loving adulterers, divorcees, murderers, pedophiles, drunks, drug addicts, or prostitutes. Oh... We're not vocal about those issues because people are trying to hide in those lifestyles. Gays are not but much can be learned about loving people...and agreeing to disagree.
- Anti-feminist - To me a feminist is a woman who believes all women should be able to do everything. Women CAN do everything. However, there's nothing wrong with a house having a husband and he leading that household. Nor is there anything wrong with a man being shepherd of a church. If that's anti-feminist, then buy me a vowel.
- Anti-artificial birth control - Sounds fundamentalist to me since I don't know of any Christians against birth-control. Against pre-marital sex and abortions, sure.
- Anti-Democrat - There's a reason why Christians are conservative and/or Republican. But some are liberal and/or Democrat. Agree to disagree.
- Anti-secular humanism - I don't support anything that places man's reason, ethics and justice above God's wisdom.
- Anti-science - Big Bang and Evolution are the only scientific issues that I'd have an issue with. That doesn't make me or anyone who feels the same way anti-science. I love science!
- Anti-life - Um, Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life...so this one totally confuses me.
Now, for Anne to describe Christians as "quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group"...that might be accurate. But what gave her this impression. Congregations? Online exchanges?
Anne Rice has had several unfortunate experiences and seemingly has allowed cultural and worldly issues to distract her.
Seems to me there's a great deal of online chatter about how the Church is broken, how people have been hurt, and maybe some suggestions on what to do...but I've found very few posts that focus on what the writer is going to do about it. If you have an issue with something, voice the concern. Then share what you're going to do about it. If it means going to a new church or denomination, ok. But quitting Christianity completely?
As a small point of clarification--Anne Rice is (was?) Catholic, which is why she included "anti birth-control."
You presume that the Church is united in "not supporting the homosexual lifestyle." I, and many of my fellow Christians who believe that the "homosexual lifestyle," as you call it, is fully compatible with the Christian life would disagree with your presumption.
To me a feminist is a woman who believes all women should be able to do everything. Women CAN do everything. However, there's nothing wrong with a house having a husband and he leading that household. Nor is there anything wrong with a man being shepherd of a church. If that's anti-feminist, then buy me a vowel.
There is nothing wrong with those things. There is, however, something wrong with saying that those things should be the norm. There is definitely something wrong with telling women who want to head a household (or women and men who *gasp* believe that such a responsibility can be shared equally between two people) or women who want to shepherd a church that they are wrong to have such desires. That is anti-feminist.
Sounds fundamentalist to me since I don't know of any Christians against birth-control.
The Roman Catholic hierarchy is pretty decidedly against it, as are many among the "Christian" Right who either follow the Quiverfull movement or who (erroneously) believe that the birth control pill is an abortifascent.
There's a reason why Christians are conservative and/or Republican. But some are liberal and/or Democrat. Agree to disagree.
Sorry, no. I can't "agree to disagree" with people who willingly ally themselves to a political movement designed to perpetuate an economic system that continually oppresses the poor. I don't think all Christians should be Democrats - partially because I think the Democrats are only marginally less wedded to corporatist consumer capitalist oligarchy than the Republicans - but I cannot simply "agree to disagree" with those who would allow and encourage the wealthy to greedily hoard their wealth while their brothers and sisters starve.
Big Bang and Evolution are the only scientific issues that I'd have an issue with. That doesn't make me or anyone who feels the same way anti-science. I love science!
That actually kinda does make you anti-science, in that you apparently seek to place your own religious dogma above the scientific method as refined throughout the centuries. Those who don't accept evolution or the Big Bang - two theoretical frameworks for which we have a great deal of evidence, both empirical and theoretical - are anti-science.
Anti-life - Um, Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life...so this one totally confuses me.
And yet, many American Christians supported things like the Iraq War, an action that has needlessly taken hundreds of thousands of lives. Many American Christians support the death penalty. Many American Christians continued to support President Bush even after it was revealed that his administration had ordered the torture of prisoners. If the support of perpetual war, the murder of prisoners, and torture isn't anti-life, then I don't know what is.
Why shouldn't the husband leading the house be the norm? Fact is, many men in the World and the Church have allowed women to take the lead out of laziness and complacency. My wife and I have a partnership. We make all decisions together, raise our daughter together, and each have chores around the house. We communicate. But we agree that I have the final decision because she views me as head of our family and even if she strongly feels a certain way about something, she will respect my decision if it differs. That's a partnership and a marriage.
Is this the norm? Probably not but does that make it not worth striving for? Men are to set the example in spiritual leadership—in their lives and through their words. Women are to take a less authoritative role. http://www.gotquestions.org/wo...
Your description of conservatives or Republicans is typical of misinformation. So, Republicans are oppressing the poor and hording money, but it's acceptable for Democrats to enslave the country in debt because they feel throwing money at the situation will solve it? By that line of thinking, I'd say neither party is effective in dealing with the needs of the poor, because it's not the government's place to help the poor, the widows, and the orphans - this is the purpose of the Church and where we have failed miserably. http://www.gotquestions.org/Re...
Your view is very slim on the beauty of science. My articulation of your thoughts is that if I don't accept a random explosion of matter and random reactions in nature as means to create life, then I am against science. Fascinating. My view is Creationism and Intelligent Design: http://www.gotquestions.org/cr...
God supports war. Jesus is not a pacifist. War is sometimes needed to prevent even greater evil. Thinking this is not so is foolish. If Hitler had not been defeated by World War II, how many more millions would have been killed? If the American Civil War had not been fought, how much longer would African-Americans have had to suffer as slaves? http://www.gotquestions.org/wa...
Oh, did I imply that? My mistake; I meant to say it outright. It is possible to be a gay Christian; in fact, I think it's more possible to be a gay Christian than it is to be an anti-gay Christian. Gay Christians are generally much more in tune with Christ's law of love than are those who use the name of Christ as a wallpaper for their hatred and bigotry.
This would presume that being gay is not a choice but is by design.
Another place where those who believe that being LGBT is a choice would also be anti-science. There is a great deal of scientific evidence now - both in genetics and in psychology - that strongly suggests that people are born gay or lesbian. In order to remain in line with science, those who deny that LGBT people are born that way are thus expected to present scientific evidence, from well-regarded peer-reviewed journals, that would suggest otherwise. Let's see some links.
People choose to be married, single, gay, commit adultery, divorce, etc.
This list reminds me of that song from Sesame Street: One of these things is not like the other, one of these things does not belong.
When did you choose to be straight?
Why shouldn't the husband leading the house be the norm?
Because it's sexist.
Men are to set the example in spiritual leadership—in their lives and through their words. Women are to take a less authoritative role.
If you believe that, okay. But don't go claiming that such a belief isn't anti-feminist, because it most certainly is. Feminism is based on the idea that men and women are equal; saying that "women are to take a less authoritative role" is to place them in a hierarchy of power below men and thus say that they are unequal. If you're going to hold anti-feminist beliefs, at least have the intellectual honesty to admit that you're anti-feminist.
So, Republicans are oppressing the poor and hording money, but it's acceptable for Democrats to enslave the country in debt because they feel throwing money at the situation will solve it?
No, it isn't. We shouldn't be enslaving the country in debt. The United States has by far the lowest marginal tax rate on its highest income earners - and even that is skewed such that the investor class (i.e., those who produce nothing of actual value to society) pay even less in taxes than entrepreneurs or small business owners. We shouldn't enslave the country in debt at all; we should be actively transferring wealth from the rich and greedy to those who haven't got enough to make ends meet.
Further, even if one doesn't accept that government should be involved in wealth redistribution, there is no question at all from an honest reading of the Bible that the Church should be involved in wealth redistribution. The American Church in particular denies Jesus Christ's statement that "it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom." If the libertarian elements of the church are going to say that government shouldn't be involved in redistributing wealth, they need to get more serious about prophetically calling the wealthy - both within and without the church - to forego most if not all of their wealth, live modestly, and engage the surplus of their wealth in the task of social justice. To prop up the immoral luxuries of wealth in the name of Christ, as the American church does (to say nothing of the Republican Party), is deeply and profoundly sacrilegious.
Your view is very slim on the beauty of science. My articulation of your thoughts is that if I don't accept a random explosion of matter and random reactions in nature as means to create life, then I am against science.
No, my thoughts are that if you don't accept science, you're against science. Science overwhelmingly points to an old universe, and can accept no other explanation for the order of things than natural, non-supernatural causes. To say "God did it" and leave it at that is profoundly anti-scientific. Again, if you're going to deny the scientific method and the conclusions derived by that method, at least have the intellectual honesty to admit that you're doing it. Don't paper over anti-scientific beliefs by saying that you're engaged in science. You're not.
God supports war. Jesus is not a pacifist.
Which part of "turn the other cheek" are you not comprehending here?
War is sometimes needed to prevent even greater evil.
And that evil is often the result of prior wars. Stop the wars, you've stopped a lot of the evil. If World War I hadn't happened, and the French and English not demanded crippling reparations for the destruction of that war (thus leading to greater economic distress in Germany), Hitler would never have had the means to rise to power.
And I strongly disagree with the site you cite there (ad nausaeum) about the justice of the Iraq War. It was a war waged on false pretenses of WMDs and faulty intelligence, pushed through in an election year by a group of amoral demagogues who believed that misinforming the public into supporting a war in which hundreds of thousands of innocent people have died is an acceptable and moral practice. Looking back at the Iraq War, I think I can categorically say that anyone who continues to believe that the war was just has absolutely no acquaintance with anything remotely resembling justice.
I did notice that you didn't touch the issue of torture, and the policy of "legalized" torture that was in place under George W. Bush while he continued to enjoy the uncritical support of right-wing American "Christianity." How can anyone who claims to be a Christian support a man who didn't just tolerate but ordered the torture of human beings created in God's image?
It is entirely possible to be a gay Christian. I think we would all presume homosexuality a matter of attraction, which it turns out isn't really a choice. Gay is broadly defined as people who are attracted to the same gender, not who does what with who. Sex isn't the defining attribute of sexuality, attraction is (otherwise what would single heterosexual folks be?).
Anyway, as such, it is entirely feasible to be both a devote Christian and attracted to people of your our gender. I have a couple of friends who are, and still quite within the Christian conservative mainstream. Additionally, there are even some well know Christians that fall into this camp, Henry Nouwan for example.
Just thought I should clarify that small point.
Consult this link and others on this site for insights into Scripture on the topic of war: http://www.gotquestions.org/wa...
That is why I so strongly reject what you have to say.
I'll also say this: the United States fought to defend itself in WWII, since the Axis powers declared war on them. The better question is : should Germany have invaded Poland? Was God on the side of the Axis? The frightening thing is, most German Christians who supported their nation's military regime did believe that God was on their side.
Think about