Sad news….

Tomorrow she might consider resigning from the human race, since many of her complaints are equally applicable to all, in a variety of forms.

I find this tiring. It's facile and obviously reductive. I know we're the Twitter generation, but give 2,000 years of thought more than 140 characters, please.

For the play-by-play:
http://www.annerice.com/

(Also, Nick, because you used the word 'facile', I officially take back everything I said in the Tyson post.)

Thanks for sending this around. I had not seen it.

I just sent Ms. Rice a tweet about Dr. Rosenbladt's "The Gospel For Those Broken By The Church", which was made for people just like her. Tragic. I wish I wasn't seeing so much of this.

And too many like her will be almost inoculated against the cure which so few are teaching and preaching today, the one thing that would bring solace: the Gospel.

I wish someone who was close to her could get her to listen to Dr. Rosenbladt's presentation. I think it could be a real help.

@so1omon

The sad part is that she has to take this stand against fellow Christians. And for all that particular Christians have a habit of calling other Christians to holiness, they only reveal their sinful hypocrisy to the masses.

For as it is written, "The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you." (Romans 2:24)

I'm glad she's able to separate Christ from the teachings and behavior of some of His followers, but I still think this sort of thing is sad.

Do you know how many people leave the faith entirely, not clinging to Jesus as Ms. Rice is, because of the treatment they're getting in church by fellow Christians? Way too many. They're not well grounded enough in Scripture to be able to take a stand against that kind of stuff, in the name of the Gospel, and figure they'd better "try something else" which doesn't condemn them so much.

When the shepherd goes around whacking the sheep with his crook to get them to behave better, the sheep eventually leave the pasture.

C'mon guys,

This blog is supposed to be about God's grace in Christ, and almost to a man you have some kind of erudite criticism of a sister who is relatively new to the faith.

Really?

She is by far not alone in her love for Jesus and hatred/sadness/brokenness toward the church and her fellow believers.Many of you have been there.

Pat,

I'm not sure 10 years involvement for someone as well read/written/thoughtful as Anne Rice can be said to be "relatively new" to anything. . .

Nobody is arguing with her reasons, goodness knows we all have experiences with the church and other Christians that could prompt us to write similar things.

And, you're right about the purpose of this blog, but we are trying to show how grace is for the pharisee and the tax-collector, not just the sophisticated, enlightened non-anti-Democrats. As we often say, the heart of the Gospel is God's love for the unlovely; this makes for strange bedfellows.

And this strangeness is exactly what she is rejecting. Todd is right, the 19th century in particular (although it is being reincarnated through the Emergent church) has tried to separate "Christianity" from Jesus many times and failed, because part and parcel to "remaining committed to Christ," is showing and having compassion for your enemies–especially when they are in the church.

This is not that we remain uncritically accepting of every practice, direction and belief, but we could expect a little bit in the way of kindness and compassion and self-awareness? (Obviously, this is a self-critique as well)

This is why Ms.Rice's comments are sad. It all-too easy to understand where she is coming from, but it is sad that someone of such prominence has made such a statement, not simply for her sake, but for all of those she left behind. Not to mention that her critique mirrors that which could easily pass for the editorial guidelines of the Huffington Post.

At any rate, whenever the presenting issue that forced her tweet is resolved, I hope she will come on back to this "quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group" and recognize that the mercies of Christ extend further than the boundary of like-minded people.

"… but we are trying to show how grace is for the pharisee and the tax-collector, not just the sophisticated, enlightened non-anti-Democrats. As we often say, the heart of the Gospel is God's love for the unlovely; this makes for strange bedfellows…"

Thank you for this, Jady. You hit exactly on what's been bothering me about Anne Rice's grandiose departure from the faith. It seems full of pride to me… her way of saying, "I'm not one of THOSE people. THOSE people are BAD. They are sinners, and I am not one of them. And I don't even want to be associated with them." Where's the forgiveness? Where's the grace? Where's the humility.

Things aren't going well in the playground, so she's taking her toys and going home. (And making sure she throws a big tantrum for the whole world to see.)

Matt, very good, thanks for sharing that.

Perhaps people who work for the church, or who've never experienced its wrath close up, very much underestimate the resentment and hatred (unfortunately, because it's really so destructive for the person who hates) that it – both in its Protestant and Catholic flavors, and it's pretty hard to choose between the two, BTW – has fostered with its behaviors over the years.

Many of us continue to belong with gritted teeth, for a thousand reasons. And it seems clear to me that she's not referring solely to the Catholic Church in her criticism here.

I don't think I'll ever feel at home in it, actually; the whole thing is contrary to my own will and desire. So I completely understand Anne Rice, and believe she's probably doing what she needs to do for her own mental health. Good for her.

Check out this extremely harsh take on Christianity (and praise for Anne Rice) at HuffPo today. It ends, "Whatever backlash Anne Rice might eventually receive from her Christian readers, or from the Evangelical establishment itself, the undeniable fact is that the decision of this sensitive, passionate, and devout woman to leave Christianity is one that Christ himself would likely understand, even applaud, even as He would likely weep at the holocaust of hatred, bigotry, and collateral carnage that has devolved from the grimy, shopworn religion to which His glorious name has been affixed."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-rowe/why-anne-rice-has-never-b_b_664576.html

someone should give her a copy of mere churchianity by the Imonk.

You could be right, StampDawg – but I could name similar examples from the Protestant side of things (except the birth control issue, I admit).

Most glaringly, the "Evangelical" churches have over the past 20-30 years made "Democrat" into a curse word, which is what I assumed she was referring to. The Catholic Church hasn't come anywhere close – nor has it attempted to manipulate the media for political gain to any sort of similar degree. Same for the gay issue; evangelical Protestants have been politically obsessed with that issue for decades now. Catholic discussion of the issue is vastly more sane and far less political.

I thought all these issues were probably swirling around in her head – they do in mine! – and the criticism was directed at the whole church. Like I said, I find it hard to choose between the two – but I get far more angry at the Protestants, to be honest, probably because I grew up in the era of Vatican II and never saw the Catholic Church as an mortal enemy the way I did the Protestant one.

And in my experience, disgruntled Catholics seem to be able to easily deal with the Episcopal Church, so I don't think there's the problem with changing denominations that there once was. (Huge numbers of Catholics in South America, in fact, have become Pentecostal, I've read!)

To me, there's not that much difference between a rigid hierarchical church and a rigid "egalitarian" one; it's the difference between simple tyranny and the "tyranny of the majority." Choose your poison.

But, you could be right; I don't know that much about Anne Rice. But since she says she's still committed to Christ, I'll just take her at her word and assume she means it and will be all right. Perhaps it's exactly the right time to resign in protest from the Church Militant (!) anyway….

It seems clear to me that she's not in fact looking for "Jesus without a church" in the "liberal Christian" sense. She's interested in a relationship with Jesus outside of this church. She disagrees with its policies, and is resigning.

I've resigned a hundred times, myself – until I get my strength and sanity back. Nothing much to see here, I don't think – and nothing that's not completely to be expected, either….

Here's maybe the best thing I've read about this:

http://www.justinmcroberts.com/blog/2010/07/open-letter-to-anne-rice/

It was Cyprian, 3rd c. bishop of Carthage, who said "He cannot have God for his father, who has not the Church for his mother". This, coupled with AR's departure, raises an interesting question concerning the role of the church in a Christian's life. Let's be clear, not everything she objected to is a RC invention. It would seem that she might have a little problem with some of Jesus' and Paul's teaching as well, and I'm not sure the earliest Christian communities would be all that willing to accommodate her departure for the reasons given.

At the risk of (more) self-promotion,
here is a short sermon that I preached at our 1662 service on this issue this past Sunday morning. It has more to do with our conceptions of church than it does with her rejection.

http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/a-church-for-anne-rice/id313150910?i=85373173

Having grown up in a completely anti-authoritarian, "free church", of sorts, I have no doubt that she can continue in her faith without some official structure and as far as it stands, I hope/trust/pray that she will indeed remain a "follower of Christ."

I thought that Dr. Moore's post was interesting, although I don't know how Christians who took defections from the faith and/or outright rejections personally get much sleep!

My issue with her statement, not her position, necessarily, was that it could easily have been written by either a modern-day (following Schliermacher) "cultured despiser" OR the Episcopal News Service, and Christians of all stripes have been clamoring over themselves to gain distance from "those" types—as Dylan pointed out:

Let's be clear, not everything she objected to is a RC invention.

Irrespective of the political ramifications of our faith–ramifications that do not easily or peacefully, at times, fall along party lines–many of the tenets of Orthodox Christianity, regardless of where one stands on the hot-button social issues, are much more exclusive and tough going than her list.

Ideas like sin, hell, redemption, the spirit, etc. . . are things that are much more offensive and contentious than different political stances regarding certain "lifestyle choices," and deeper than any sort of emnity that exists between Fox news aficionados and Reed College Alumni:)

However, the reason people get all up in arms about this–IMNSHO–is that these deeper issues, the real areas of offense, are essentially ignored by the media or even Christianity's own adherents. So, we have a situation where her "defection" is celebrated by non-Christians as a cultural triumph, irrespective of any kind of genuine theological statement she may be making.

I mean really, is the fact that the RCC doesn't ordain women really that big of a deal to modern secular joe/sally? What is the real offense of the RCC? Surely it can't be simply that they disagree over the definition of marriage?

At any rate, this is what bugs me about all of these reactions.

We have a long, sophisticated and deeply pious tradition of thinking on most of the issues that she raises—the outcomes of which she may disagree with at points, but to lump this tradition in with the vitriol and hatred that is Fred Phelps is playing to the most base and stereotypical level—sort of the mirror image of the very people she is arguing against.

For example, there are some positions reached–cf. the stance of the ACNA churches, or the LCMS—that would be, on their face, seen as similar if not the same to the "anti's" listed by Rice, and no doubt some people within that church body would fit the stereotype; however, many of those people are thoughtful and caring and nothing like the "deservedly infamous group" she derides; nevertheless, they are lumped in with her rejection, and outside "cultured despisers" are more than happy to oblige her.

Jady, it's not so much whether or not people's reaction are justified – they probably are – or that she placed herself in the position of responsibility and greater scrutiny, but that I sympathize with the weight of expectations she must have faced. I don't think she was surprised at all; I think her knowledge of this impending outrage/support was a contributing factor in the decision itself. If anything, the public forum of the denunciation indicates the public pressure she faced. She was expected (and wanted to) carry the flag of Christianity. Theologically speaking, this law of leadership, responsibility and expectation was too much for her.

Something to keep in mind is that Anne Rice's post, precisely because of its terse and ill-defined nature, has become a kind of inkblot, a Rorschach image that allows people from all over the web to riff on it, projecting their own concerns onto it.

Lots of people are saying that "they know what she means" or that they know how she feels. I for one don't know! There's a tremendous amount of ambiguity. Does she still believe all the classic creedal affirmations and teachings about the person of Christ? Does she believe in the Atonement? What specifically caused her in the last few weeks to issue her cryptic disavowal? Who knows?

The way that the web encourages us to riff at will also aids us in talking past each other.

For example, it's one thing (as I did in my first comment) to focus very specifically in AR and what might going on just with her, what her disavowal and its antitheses might mean on her own terms and in the context of her own life as an RC. (And then generalizing very slightly to a pattern I see in a number of RC expats.)

It's a different thing (though a perfectly valid one) to take her list of antitheses and riff on how they might be given meaning in some general way for all kinds of Christian communions, quite independently of what they may have meant for Rice.

It's yet another thing to move from that to riffing on the general question of what is it about the core claims of Christianity that might attack or offend people and whether these might have nothing to do with compartively superficial issues like sexuality or birth control or feminism, etc.

All of this is fine to talk about, but it's worth realizing we are talking about totally different things.

That said, I am still reasonably certain about what I said at first — which is that, her own particular issues are likely to be tied up with her problems with Rome. RCs use parental metaphors in describing their church (the pope is the Holy Father, their Church is Holy Mother Church) and so RCs unsurprisingly can evince patterns of rebellion and return and fixation that are exactly what you'd expect with a child's relation to Mom and Dad. Nobody would tell you Just Get Another Set Of Parents — if you had issues. Some RCs can therefore find themselves unable to define Christianity in any other terms than those given by a relation to Rome. The history of AR, including this most recent rebellion of hers, is consistent with that.