I was thinking of commenting on this issue and noticed that brother Marcus had done so already but then I thought that a little reiteration never hurts.
Famous Interview with a Vampire and sequels author, Anne Rice, is about to become a beloved icon in yet another way: as a criticizer of Christianity.
The Associate Press reports1:
Anne Rice has had a religious conversion: She’s no longer a Christian.
“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,” the author wrote Wednesday on her Facebook page. “In the name of … Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen.”
Rice, 68, is best known for “Interview With a Vampire” and other gothic novels. Raised as a Catholic, she had rejected the church early in her life but renewed her faith in recent years and in 2008 released the memoir “Called Out of Darkness: A Spiritual Confession.”
In a telephone interview Thursday, Rice said she had been having doubts for the past two to three years. She was troubled by the child abuse scandals in the church, and the church’s defensive reaction, and by the ex-communication of Sister Margaret McBride, a nun and hospital administrator who had approved an abortion for a woman whose life was in danger.
“I believed for a long time that the differences, the quarrels among Christians didn’t matter a lot for the individual, that you live your life and stay out of it. But then I began to realize that it wasn’t an easy thing to do,” said Rice, speaking from her home near Palm Springs, Calif. “I came to the conclusion that if I didn’t make this declaration, I was going to lose my mind.”
Rice said she is a Democrat who supports the health care legislation signed into law by President Barack Obama and believes gay marriage inevitably will be permitted throughout the country. Although no longer part of any denomination, she remains a believer and continues to read theology and post Biblical passages on her Facebook page. She has no immediate plans to write about her leaving the church and will continue with her metaphysical fiction series, “Songs of the Seraphim.”
Rice will not be taking up vampires again, but she said she is a big fan of the HBO series “True Blood,” enjoyed the first two “Twilight” movies (she has yet to read any of the Stephenie Meyer novels) and is interested in seeing her most famous character, the vampire Lestat de Lioncourt, return to the screen.
“We’re in talks about it,” she said. “But then we’ve always been in talks about it. Hope springs eternal in California.”
Let us review as I discern is a non sequiturous correlation between political issues and Christianity.
Firstly, one wonders how solid her faith renewal was when she “renewed her faith in recent years and in 2008” it is now 2010 and/but “she had been having doubts for the past two to three years.” Thus, from the inception of her renewal she had doubts: about what is not specified unless what is meant is with regards to her doubts about the various issues raised.
She “quit Christianity” and if that means rejecting an ecclesiastical hierarchical authoritarian system then indeed, amen! God quite religion long before Anne Rice
Moreover, she also quite “being Christian” and yet, “remains a believer.” Well, it may be semantics but a believer is a Christian and a Christian is a believer “Christian” means follower of Christ and not a member in good standing with the Roman Catholic Church—this, I think, is her real issue. Just as atheists encourage confusing rejection of “religion” with rejection of God she appears to be confusing rejection of oppressive and immoral Roman Catholic declarations with rejection of “Christianity.”
Why does she conclude that she has to be “anti-gay”? Whether gays are seen as neighbors or enemies the Christian message is to love them. Just as the Christian saying goes hate the sin, love the sinner being anti- homosexuality is not the same as being “anti-gay.” Moreover, it is not the least bit problematic to assert that, and here I agree with Anne Rice, “gay marriage inevitably will be permitted throughout the country.” All this is saying is that “gay marriage inevitably will be permitted throughout the country.” If the majority populace so votes or if regardless of majority vote politicians make it so the statement is not about approval of disapproval it is simply about political realities. That she may endorse the homosexual lifestyle is another issue.
Why does she conclude that she has to be “anti-feminist”? Keeping in mind that feminism can means various things another distinction must be drawn between 1) what saith the Bible and 2) what saith and/or doeth the “church.” Speaking for the Bible I will merely direct the interested reader to see Find it Fast – Fast Facts: is the Bible misogynistic?
Why does she conclude that she has to be “anti-artificial birth control”? Again, she confuses particular and peculiar Roman Catholic proclamations with general/generic “Christianity.” That life, children, are a precious gift of God does not mean that we cannot practice anti-artificial birth control. In fact, it is because life, children, are a precious gift of God that we should not take them lightly. On the other hand anti-artificial birth control should not be used as an excuse for irresponsible and/or sinful sexuality.
Her anti statements actually go beyond that which was quoted by the AP. She also stated,
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.2
Here we go again:
Why does she conclude that she has to be “anti-Democrat”? There may be quite a disparity between Christian ethics and the Democrat Party’s platform, such as baby murder, but overall this is a political issue. She may be shocked to learn that there are very many Christian Democrats.
Why does she conclude that she has to be “anti-secular humanism”? Well, ok, she may have something here as, let us fact the facts, secular humanism is just a happy face pasted on atheism and it is a sort of activist atheism which defines “atheism” as “anti-Christianity.” But again, love them while not agreeing with them is the Christian view—see here for an elucidation of various atheism related terms.
Why does she conclude that she has to be “anti-science”? I know all about the secular myth of warfare between science and religion. As I write this I am in the process of reading Rodney Stark’s The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success in which he elucidates why it is that science was truly able to flourish, its fields and methods actually established, upon a Judeo-Christian worldview/theology.
Considering her correlation of “Christianity” with politics, she is probably referring to stem cell issues or some such parochial thing.
Why does she conclude that she has to be “anti-life”? This one I truly and simply do not understand—period.
By the way; it is just me of it the only things she does not seem to be against is being anti-“Christianity”?
When it comes to being “troubled by the child abuse scandals…and the church’s defensive reaction” is something with which all Christians ought empathize and agreed. And while there are child abusers of all worldviews she is, again, specifically referring to a Roman Catholic issue and, perhaps, one which has its roots in their own un-biblical doctrines—see The Celibate Priesthood – God’s Will and Human Nature
As for the “abortion for a woman whose life was in danger” this is, perhaps, the only moral sort of abortion as the alternative is to stand by, do nothing, and watch two people die instead of acting to save one. This is not an abortion of convenience but a life and death situation.
As for “health care legislation” again this is mostly a political issue yet, when the Roman Catholic Church got involved was when it provided for tax payer funded death camps aka abortion clinics. It is when health care legislation provides for the subhuman, inhuman and inhumane brutal dismembering murder of beautiful, healthy, innocent and defenseless human babies that it must be opposed (issues of socialism, etc. are another topic).
I just wanted to note that when it comes to being a “fan of the HBO series ‘True Blood’” I wrote about that show; The Truth Behind Charlaine Harris’ “True Blood” and “Sookie Stackhouse”
Overall, it seems that she has mixed up various categories in correlating various things that need not necessarily be correlated from politics, to “Christianity,” to the specific Roman Catholic declarations.
If, despite of her rejection of “Christianity” (however she defines that) and being a “Christian” (however she defines that) “she remains a believer”—a believer in that the Messiah Jesus died for her sins—then she remains a Christian albeit, one who requires some reevaluation of her thoughts.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter
page, on my Facebook page, on my Google+ page and/or the “Share/Save” button below the tags.