Anne Rice, author of the a series of best-selling vampire novels and, most recently, fictional accounts of the life of Christ, has taken to Facebook to announce she is no longer a Christian:
For those who care, and I understand if you don’t: 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.
Later she wrote:
As I said below, I quit being a Christian. I’m out. 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.
July 29th, 2010 | 1:20 pm
It’s probably worth noting that we’ve every reason to think she still confesses the resurrection and such.
Given all she’s said on these matters (feminism, birth control, homosexuality, Democratic party, etc.) over the past 10 years, it’s pretty clear that the only change that’s happened is a matter of self-labeling.
July 29th, 2010 | 1:26 pm
Girl’s always been a flake.
July 29th, 2010 | 1:26 pm
Well, if Anne Rice is out, I’m out. I only became a Christian because Anne Rice was a Christian, but now that she’s not a Christian, I’m not a Christian. But, if she ever gets back in, then I’m in too, although I don’t know how you get back in once you’re out if the people who let you out won’t let you back in. Getting in the first time is easy, so long as you plan on staying in, but once you want out, then getting out is easier than getting back in once you’re out. To be on the outs with the people who are in is harder than being in on who’s out. But if you’re out, the outs are really those who are in, assuming they let you in. The worst thing that can happen if you want to get out and get in with people who are out is if the in group of outs think you were out too long to let you in even though the people you were in with have just let you out, so you’re stuck neither in nor out. And as Frank Sinatra said, “Either you’re in or you’re out.”
Everybody got that?
July 29th, 2010 | 1:33 pm
Another reason I’m out is that there are too many posts with the word “rice” in it. Next thing you know they’ll be a post about Condi Rice speaking at Rice University. This is how Nazi Germany started although I may be wrong about that.
July 29th, 2010 | 1:36 pm
It’s like she is saying “I hate cheese and hamburger but I still like cheeseburgers”. How can you be “committed to Christ” but not committed to His scriptural teachings? Although, it seems that part of her issue is more like saying “I hate McDonald’s Big Macs, so I’ll never eat a hamburger again”, when there are plenty of other places to get to get a great and possibly better hamburger (can you tell it’s almost my lunch time?). She seems to disagree with some things that other Christians may support but that aren’t actually Christian in nature, like anti-science, anti-Democrat (there are plenty of Christian Democrats) and anti-life (whatever “anti-life” means). You can’t accept Christ while rejecting His teachings. “Choose ye this day”, “ye cannot serve God and mammon”.
Yet I can understand where some of her frustration comes from as many “Christians” now and throughout the ages have bastardized scriptural teachings and what it means to live a Christ-like life through hypocritical behavior and atrocious acts supposedly performed “in the name of Christ”, as well as all of the arguing within Christianity, which so often is “a house divided against itself”.
She, and much of Christianity, is missing the Holy Spirit, which unites us, brings clarity of vision, purpose and Christian practice, will “teach you all things”, and whose fruits are “love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance”. We must connect with God before we ever say or do anything “in His name”. This disconnect is more damaging to Christianity than any other belief system or atheism; but when we have this connection, then “they that be with us are more than they that be with them”.
July 29th, 2010 | 1:39 pm
I’ll have some of what Anthony’s smoking.
July 29th, 2010 | 1:40 pm
Come now, we all know it’s because vampires are back in vogue and there’s more money to be made writing vampire novels again.
Within 6 months she’ll announce a new Vampire novel coming out. She likely would feel guilty if she still called herself “Christian” when it did – or worse yet, fears “Christians” would call her a hypocrite.
July 29th, 2010 | 1:41 pm
“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.”
Doesn’t she think that Episcopalians are Christians? No joke. Why couldn’t she, as many do, say, “You’re a Christian Conservative, I’m a Christian Liberal. I think you wrong in you’re application of some of the basic truths we share; you think the same of me. Let’s share a beer.”?
Maybe she has a tribelistic orientation, where the most important thing is ‘whose team are you on?’ And/or maybe she has been confronted by such folks who see themselves as on the other team.
If there’s a lesson, maybe it’s that we should more often say, “You don’t have to be like me to be a Christian.”
July 29th, 2010 | 1:55 pm
I’m with Feeney, I think she’s always been a fake. At best she’s always been confused and this just confirms that.
July 29th, 2010 | 2:09 pm
Anthony is very funny and I would buy his book! Otherwise, the rest of this just bites! Pun intended.
July 29th, 2010 | 2:28 pm
I hope part of what she said was simply frustration talking; but I really do think a great deal of charity is called for in situations like this. Certainly accusations that she’s a “fake,” or a “hypocrite” simply out to sell books, or a “flake” are way too harsh, and I hope some of that is just disappointment talking.
July 29th, 2010 | 2:29 pm
I wonder if Rice’s Facebook remark from Tuesday provides context for this? On Tuesday she said,
“Gandhi famously said: “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” When does a word (Christian)become unusable? When does it become so burdened with history and horror that it cannot be evoked without destructive controversy?”
Does that imply that yesterday’s announcement is mostly a refusal to be identified with “organized Christianity”?
July 29th, 2010 | 2:32 pm
I’m not sure what book Pastor Philip is reading, and as much as I care for the salvation, of Ms. Rice, proclaiming to believe something she doesn’t believe isn’t enough to get her saved. I understand the disappointment in denominations. Still, it sounds like many of her problems are with those who actually adhere to the Bible, as opposed to make Christianity a religion….a way to make you feel better about your life. Pastor Philip’s comments above are just puzzling. Sir, if you are truly a man of God, you have a duty to live your life and preach according to the word of God, not to the joys of this world, the happiness of man’s desires, or any other polluted purpose. To insinuate that God is anything but against homosexuality and killing babies denies the same God that “Christians” claim to believe in.
But Pastor Philip does say one intelligible thing:
“If there’s a lesson, maybe it’s that we should more often say, ‘You don’t have to be like me to be a Christian.’”
Absolutely right sir. As the first ‘Christians’ were thus called by outsiders in the book of Acts, being a Christian is merely a man-made label. No, we don’t have to be like others to be a Christian. Christian literally means “little Christ/mini-Christ.” So to be a Christian, you have to be like Christ.
Christianity isn’t about your beliefs on issues, but on what our living God has said.
The Bible doesn’t change for us.
Furthermore, what Ms. Rice calls anti-gay, I call what it truly is, “anti-sin.” We are not called to be malicious or unloving towards any sinner. We don’t hate the homosexual, we hate his sin. And that’s what it is. Just like the rest of us, homosexuals are committing sin.
At some point, as Dr. Menninger wrote, our society lost its value of sin.
July 29th, 2010 | 2:38 pm
She loves Christ but hates His Bride, the Church. Got it.
July 29th, 2010 | 2:39 pm
I read her story of her conversion, “Called Out of Darkness.” She’s not a fake. She most likely just doesn’t like the label “Christian.”
Jesus said it was through Him we would be saved, not through our identification label. And yes, I believe strongly in His Church, and I think Rice is mistaken in her comments. But that’s different from calling her flaky or a fake. As a Christian (despite not calling herself that), she is simply thinking differently about things than I do.
July 29th, 2010 | 2:42 pm
I converted in my twenties, or at least I tried to. I had read a few books, like Seven Storey Mountain and St. Augustine’s Confessions, and I said, “Hey, this Christianity stuff looks really cool.” Then I went to daily mass (Merton called daily mass “Spritual Intensive Care” and I was the only guy under 65. I would go to confession and the priest would tell me it was after Vatican II now, and after all, people who go to confession too much “sometimes have mental problems.”
So I left. It was too hard. I started going back to Buddhist stuff that I thought was more accessible – you know, more young people, cooler gurus, etc.
But I came back, after I finally met some folks who were really living their faith.
I hope the same for Ms. Rice. I did always find her conversion… curious. But who knows the pathways of a man’s heart, much less a woman’s?
July 29th, 2010 | 2:59 pm
For the past several weeks Anne Rice has shared on her Facebook page her reading of Tolstoy and posing the question as to whether an association with institutional or cultural forms of Christianity was essential to an authentic relationship with Christ. These posts have often times been correlated with others concerning real and perceived insufficiencies in the response of Christians to various political and cultural issues such as the sex abuse scandal and the civil marriage of homosexuals. It seems to me that she has been seeking for a way by which she can maintain her personal commitment to Christ while mitigating her commitment to institutional and cultural forms that are Christian. My guess from her recent post is that she has come to terms with this distinction, rejecting Christianity, but not Christ. She is not alone in this determination. It seems to be a particular expression of a perennial cultural dynamic in which folks who are distressed or dissatisfied by Christianity (or “institutional” religion) and yet remain unwilling to abandon their relationship with Christ. I don’t think that such a separation is really possible, but many people are negotiating their faith in this way. I don’t think it is seemly to be glib about what Anne Rice has expressed, alienation from the Church is always sad and the Church is diminished by those who renounce their communion with the Body of Christ. We should be praying for her. Whenever anyone leaves the Church we have lost a friend.
July 29th, 2010 | 3:17 pm
This is truly sad, and I understand the struggle.
For some people it’s all-or-nothing. And, I suppose, it should be. When I came to understand Christianity (and in particular, Catholicism), there came a moment when I had to accept the teachings of orthodox Christianity. That’s a tough moment, and it took years to really come on-board. It meant the re-structuring of political beliefs, brutally conflicting with some things I was entrenched in with my plans to become a professor of literature.
The problem is that we can buy into the nice guy Christ, the savior, the narrative and the consolations it brings. But what about the demands? That’s always the tough part. It sounds to me like Ms. Rice can’t quite reconcile her sociopolitical worldview with the demands of traditional Christianity, so has decided to keep Christ-the-nice-guy and ditch all the structure. An emotive move if there ever was one, but rarely do people apostatize after having come to some logical, well-thought-out conclusion.
At any rate, let’s all pray for her in the struggle.
July 29th, 2010 | 3:19 pm
Why quit when she could have just joined the Episcopalians?
On a serious note, there is so much depth to Christianity, that describing it reminds me of the 3 blindfolded men attempting to describe an elephant. (It’s long and slender; it’s massive, like a wrinkled wall; it curls like a snake. etc.) I was an agnostic for years before discovering Orthodox Christianity, which is a thing of powerful, incredible and mystical beauty. It’s not Protestantism or Catholicism–and that’s why I joined. If my choice were limited to those, I’d still be looking into Buddhism.
Whatever it is, it most assuredly is not secular Leftism. God speed, Anne. I pray you wake up one day.
July 29th, 2010 | 3:20 pm
“quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group”
Sounds like she was not openminded enough to be a Christian. Ah, irony.
July 29th, 2010 | 3:26 pm
I’ve heard straight from the horses mouth (an interview she gave on the Whitehorse Inn radio program) that she returned to the faith in view of the kinds of historical arguments put forward by N.T. Wright. She mentioned him by name.
July 29th, 2010 | 3:31 pm
That is, returned to the faith about 10 years ago.
Her reticence is with the Church in America, not with the faith once for a received by the saints. (Or so I’m guessing.) Right or wrong.
July 29th, 2010 | 3:34 pm
Steve K
Sorry if I was to ambiguous. I’ll clarify later, but right now I have to go get my .44 Magnum back from the gun smith.
July 29th, 2010 | 3:56 pm
I feel her pain… I wish the church would take the sins greed and gossip as seriously as it takes the sin of homosexuality.
She is still a follower or Christ, she just is rejecting the label. Unfortunately, too many of us take the label as being more important that the object the label purports to describe. Many “Christians” have as little in common with Christ as a label calling a pair of pants a shirt.
July 29th, 2010 | 4:25 pm
I feel her pain… I wish the church would take the sins greed and gossip as seriously as it takes the sin of homosexuality.
I feel her pain and wish the same. But she’s being proud. I hope she learns that her sins grieve God as much as the Religious Right’s.
July 29th, 2010 | 4:26 pm
Maybe Rice just wants to be a follower of Christ, and not a “Christian?”
July 29th, 2010 | 4:56 pm
She lasted longer than Larry Flynt did.
July 29th, 2010 | 5:09 pm
Maybe so much of her struggle comes from the fact that her only (living) child is gay. She has lost her beloved husband. She has also been supported and surrounded for many years by gay people who are attracted to the homoerotic aspect of her books. If she were to proclaim and adhere to traditional Christian values, they would surely feel like she was slapping them in the face and I can understand why she wouldn’t be able to stomach that. I will keep praying for her because it’s clear to me the Holy Spirit is working on something in her. As she has written her books about the life of Christ and came back to the Church, I can only imagine the bewilderment of those closest to her. It could be just a matter of not wanting to reject those she loves (not being to separate the sin from the sinner). We are called to do the hard thing as followers of Christ, of course, but I can understand how that would be a difficult road to take.
July 29th, 2010 | 5:24 pm
This is just more evidence of how woefully secular Leftism has polluted Catholicism. Rice isn’t a stupid person by any means, yet she is being led astray by an inability to discern the profound differences between the goals of secular Leftism and Christianity.
Ostensibly, secular Leftism values human diginity, brotherhood, love, etc. but its totalitarian goals, ruthless means and murderous results are as night to the day of Christianity. Leftism is the victory of nihilism over transcendence, pessimism over optimism, fate over freedom, and envy and covetousness over love and generosity.
Until Christians–especially Catholics–realize the deadly effects of Leftist propaganda on Christian ethics, Christianity will continue to be marginalized and excluded from public discourse in the west. As long as it is, itself, confused, it will be unable to stanch the bleeding.
July 29th, 2010 | 5:28 pm
Where would we all be without Rice’s definition of what is and is not acceptable in “Christianity”? She may believe she remains a follower of Christ, but I’m not sure how one can do that while conemning His Bride.
Kamilla
July 29th, 2010 | 5:32 pm
It sounds like Ms. Rice has had her Linus moment. As Linus of Peanuts said, “I love humanity, it’s the people I can’t stand.”
July 29th, 2010 | 5:34 pm
“It’s simply impossible for me to ‘belong’ to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group.”
Yeah. As if anyone couldn’t have said the same about Marxists, anarchists, the local PTA, or any other collection of human beings.
Ms. Rice is simply another in a long line of people who want to believe some version of political ideology will bring about her own personal parousia. It would be noteworthy were it not so pedestrian.
July 29th, 2010 | 6:23 pm
Anne Rice is an example for those who call themselves Christian but are actually not.
July 29th, 2010 | 7:00 pm
This ranks up there with UFO sightings, Lindsay Lohan’s rehab, the Chelsea/Soros’ wedding, and Michelle’s latest recipe. It’s what comes from taking celebrities seriously. Sure it’s a sinful world, but also a very silly, sick and slick one. Full of suckers.
July 29th, 2010 | 7:00 pm
Gosh, some of you are just plain mean. I’m shocked, shocked to find there are people who don’t want to be associated with your religion…
Plenty of Catholics/Christians were more than happy to fawn all over Anne Rice when she announced her return to Catholicism because she is such a high-profile pop culture figure. News of her reversion to Catholicism was proclaimed loud and proud among the Catholic blogosphere.
Now she’s just as publicly rejecting the Church because of the kind of hateful rhetoric she had to endure.
Does the Church teach people to be hateful about gay people? No. But they are hateful all the same, and no one writes snarky, mean blog posts about them.
She’s right. You people are just not nice to know. She’ll probably be much happier not being exposed to the constant stream of hate directed towards her son.
For the record, all of you people with retarded kids have kids born just as “disordered” as you claim gay kids are. When you stamp your feet and insist your kids are mainstreamed with our natural, normal children and sit in their classrooms with them even though their particular disorder makes it impossible for them to function normally, are they as guilty of sinning as a gay person who has sex?
It’s exactly the same thing, but if anyone said it to some retarded kid’s parents, Catholics would have a fit. Yet they say it to gay kids’ parents all the time.
She’s leaving your country club, hatefest of a Church. You should be happy. You got what you wanted. Now just shut up about it already, you rotten little losers.
July 29th, 2010 | 7:34 pm
Rice’s decision is proof that “ideology trumps everything.”
July 29th, 2010 | 7:41 pm
Steve K,
I didn’t mean that I agree with Miss Rice about those issues. Nor do I mean that authentic Christianity accepts abortion and homosexuality, but as St. Paul said in an other context, “but not everyone knows this.” I believe that many Christians are mistaken about the law, and they, like myself, must be persuaded toward righteousness. I’d just like to get the lady to Heaven and let God straighten her out, as He shall all of us.
P.S. If you’re interested about what I believe, just click on my name and that will get you to my church’s web sight.
July 29th, 2010 | 7:55 pm
And Anne Rice will start dating a newly-sober Mel Gibson with sexy results.
July 29th, 2010 | 8:08 pm
Jesus did not come to make the world Christian. He came to make it human. Anne, Welcome to humanity:
http://alexmcmanus.org/2008/03/10/taking-a-walk-on-the-human-side/
July 29th, 2010 | 8:38 pm
Rice is not the first to stub a toe on the demands of the Gospel.
“When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.”
Lord, have mercy.
July 29th, 2010 | 8:38 pm
Pastor Spomer said it: so she’s an Episcopalian. She needs to get over herself. Really. I think the Holy Spirit can help with that.
July 29th, 2010 | 10:07 pm
Of course it’s sad that the members of Christ’s church do not measure up to his teachings, but isn’t that why he came into the world in the first place? To save sinners? Can one love Christ and not love the sinners he has called to share in his kingdom?
July 29th, 2010 | 10:40 pm
“Ostensibly, secular Leftism values human diginity, brotherhood, love, etc. but its totalitarian goals, ruthless means and murderous results are as night to the day of Christianity.”
Can you define “secular Leftism”? Does your definition include Golda Meir? Jawaharlal Nehru? John Stuart Mill?
July 29th, 2010 | 11:51 pm
C., did you even bother to proofread what you wrote? Here are a couple of excerpts:
“Gosh, some of you are just plain mean. …”
“… Now just shut up about it already, you rotten little losers.”
It’s not a good idea to commit the very sin you’re accusing others of committing, while you’re accusing them of committing it. People might think you’re a hypocrite (or, in this case, a mean hypocrite). In the process, you end up looking no better—or even worse—than those you’re reprimanding.
July 30th, 2010 | 12:38 am
“Plenty of Catholics/Christians were more than happy to fawn all over Anne Rice when she announced her return to Catholicism because she is such a high-profile pop culture figure. News of her reversion to Catholicism was proclaimed loud and proud among the Catholic blogosphere.”
If the father of the prodigal son could hold a feast at the return of his son, why not the Church? Although, I am surprised that this is considered “fawning”. I didn’t know we were fawning all over a baby when we celebrate the baby’s baptism with merriment and song.
“For the record, all of you people with retarded kids have kids born just as “disordered” as you claim gay kids are.”
Oh FFS, please read up on the doctrines you are criticizing before you open fire. A “moral disorder” is not on the same page as a mental one.
“Gosh, some of you are just plain mean.”
LOL!! If being mean was enough to drive poor Anne Rice out, then she’s in for a surprise following the person who would whip a bunch of hapless moneylenders for sullying his temple. Or, you know, the guy who told the whore who gave him perfume to stop whoring.
I’m personally beginning to feel that if Anne Rice is anything like C., then she is a far better poseur than she is an intellectual or “follower of Christ”.
July 30th, 2010 | 12:54 am
“But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.” Matt. 10:33
July 30th, 2010 | 8:02 am
I don’t know if you Americans know the joy of the “William” stories by Richmal Crompton? Anne Rice’s outburst calls to mind the spoiled child Violet Elizabeth Bott who would “thcream and thcream and thcream until I’m sick” if she couldn’t get her own way.
July 30th, 2010 | 9:39 am
I’ve never read any of Rice’s stuff, and ordinarily I’d be the sort to make a wisecrack at her for leaving too, but reading through all these comments slagging her is pretty unedifying.
So she’d prefer to align herself with quarrelsome liberals than quarrelsome christians. That’s fine, I guess, regardless of my own opinion of liberals. Even if she doesn’t feel much kinship to the christian community, hopefully she still does to Christ.
July 30th, 2010 | 10:12 am
Never in the history of christianity has so much been written by so many about so little.
July 30th, 2010 | 10:32 am
“A ‘moral disorder’ is not on the same page as a mental one.”
Doesn’t the anti-gay right (assuming that’s the position of the author of this post) endorse the notion that homosexuality is a “mental disorder”?
July 30th, 2010 | 10:38 am
Jon,
As a social conservative, I take issue with your characterization of us. One is no more ‘anti-gay’ for thinking homosexuality is a mental disorder than one is ‘anti-schizophrenic’ for thinking schizophrenia’s a mental disorder. We are pro-gay, in the sense that we want to help gays overcome their disorder.
Hope this helps!
July 30th, 2010 | 11:01 am
Sean,
Nope doesn’t help at all. The other Jon R. when distinguishing between mental retardation and homosexuality, claimed “[a] ‘moral disorder’ is not on the same page as a mental one.”
So which is it?
July 30th, 2010 | 11:07 am
Jon Rowe So which is it?
Like all disordered sexual desires homosexual orientation has a mental component. But homosexual orientation is not a “mental disorder.” (About a third of what is in the DSM-IV should not be classified as a “mental disorder” either.)
We need to stop trying to fit every sin into a disease model of behavior.
July 30th, 2010 | 11:08 am
It sounds as if her journey to the Father is not along a straight path.
Perhaps, as she is a public figure, she is something of a lightening rod and found herself having to be an apologist for all of the positions of the Church, even ones farther from her self that what drew her to Christ. Maybe we should just pray for her.
July 30th, 2010 | 11:32 am
[...] that she’s quitting being a Christian, although not giving up her belief in Christ. (H/t FT) Some of her reasons: As I said below, I quit being a Christian. I’m out. In the name of [...]
July 30th, 2010 | 11:55 am
This is very disappointing if not completely unexpected news. Anne Rice was a great example of conversion to hold up to others. It’s a shame that her conversion turns out to have been superficial, based on politics and preferences that ultimately do not matter.
She has made a fundamental error in publicly condemning “Christianity” because she has misapprehended the term. There is hope that she might return to full communion should she find good guidance and gentle correction.
In the meantime we would all do well to see our own spiritual journey in hers. We are lucky to see a prominent person struggle with her faith openly and thereby provide guidance for our own private ways of the cross.
And he said to all, “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.” — Luke 9:23
What great saint, what Christian, has not been tempted to strike a deal to avoid the inevitable trials on the way to Calvary? The prince of the apostles, the great St. Peter himself, denied our Lord three times.
We are losing a sister in Christ, but she is not lost. She needs us more than ever.
A dramatist through and through, a pulp author (to the end?): “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.”
The Lord of the universe does not concern himself with the trifles around which Ms. Rice has chosen to construct our “Christian” identity. If only she knew.
“‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” — Mark 12:29
Why would she abandon the flock of fellow co-strugglers! We all need all the help we can get. Then again, why do any of us stray? I pray that she can set aside trifles and concentrate on her love for the Lord. I pray that I can set them aside too. We, in all our imperfections and all our shared challenges, will be here waiting for her return. We are all prodigal sons.
July 30th, 2010 | 11:57 am
‘Doesn’t the anti-gay right (assuming that’s the position of the author of this post) endorse the notion that homosexuality is a “mental disorder”?’
While I refuse to be roped into the negative connotation of “anti-gay Right” (which is nonsense, since it is not a big deal to be against a particular form of behavior), the notion of homosexuality as a “mental disorder” and the notion of homosexuality as a “moral disorder” exist on two different planes. Not all mental disorders result in moral disorders, just as not all moral disorders have an attendant mental disorder. However, it is not inconsistent to say that homosexuality is both. But, for my money, whether or not homosexuality is a mental disorder is beside the point. The fact that it is a moral disorder (akin to those things within the fallen nature of man that give him a propensity for sin) is what counts.
July 30th, 2010 | 12:24 pm
Jonathan,
I don’t know why you would demand your position to be stated euphemistically. You are part of the “anti-gay Right” however you wish the issue to be framed.
Say it loud. Say it proud.
July 30th, 2010 | 12:28 pm
“Not all mental disorders result in moral disorders, just as not all moral disorders have an attendant mental disorder. However, it is not inconsistent to say that homosexuality is both. But, for my money, whether or not homosexuality is a mental disorder is beside the point.”
I think Joe is right that to say homosexuality is a mental disorder muddies the issue.
The fact is most mental disorders (depression, anxiety disorders, eating disorders, schizophrenia) have nothing to do with moral issues. Having a disease — mental disorders included — is also a protection civil right under the Americans with Disabilities Act and cognate disabilities legislation.
July 30th, 2010 | 1:24 pm
Jon,
Well, as a pro-gay conservative, I guess I’d say the difference between homosexuality and mental retardation is that the former entails both moral and mental disorder, while the latter only entails mental disorder.
Did that clear it up for you? Are you saying that homosexuality should be legal under the Americans With Disabilities Act? Because that’s a pretty bold claim.
July 30th, 2010 | 1:37 pm
Her argument sounds like recycled arianism with a twist, that is, denying that our complementary nature as Male and Female is endowed to us from God, “Let Us Make Man In Our Image…” and denying that it can be known through reasoning, that The Blessed Trinity exists within a complementary relationship of Perfect Love through the Unity of The Holy Spirit. (Filioque)
July 30th, 2010 | 1:48 pm
oops, that should read The Blessed Trinity exists within an ordered, complementary, relationship of Perfect Love through the Unity of The Holy Spirit thus the Holy Spirit proceeds from The Love Between The Father and The Son.(Filioque)
July 30th, 2010 | 2:06 pm
“Did that clear it up for you?”
Yes, you are full of it. I would have added two letters to “it” were it permitted on this site.
July 30th, 2010 | 2:42 pm
Christians, especially the radical evangelical right have subverted the teachings of Jesus. Presently, humanitarian “pagans” emanate a more circumspect visage than the arrogant Christians; bearing their righteous campaigns against any perceived fringe groups or opposing faiths.
As Melville wrote in Moby Dick, “Better sleep with a sober cannibal than a drunken Christian”. The statement is a metaphor for any individual or group that believes it has a divine mandate to cajole or require others to conform to their narrow ideologies.
Many of our prominent founding fathers were Deists, NOT Christians. Deism contains the dominant principals behind the composition of our Bill of Rights and Constitution; Christianity wasn’t up to the task.
Most early American leaders adhered to principles from the ‘age of enlightenment’ which was an intentional break from traditional European social and religious exclusionist practices.
Modern religions are de-evolving into discriminatory rather than inclusionary practices; a direct result of their political agendas which run contrary to the tenets of their celestial origins.
Jesus would be astounded at the names modern Christians would attribute to him for caring for the infirmed, feeding the poor or forgiving and including gays, different ethnicities and idolaters, (materialistic, greedy industrialists and politicians), as all being God’s children.
Considering the evidence at hand it’s no wonder Ms. Rice has rejected modern Christianity.
July 30th, 2010 | 3:15 pm
Err… good luck to Anne Rice and her pro-gay, pro-abortion, secular humanist version of Jesus Christ.
July 30th, 2010 | 5:26 pm
Good to see both The Deuce and William have missed the boat… How can you mistake her statement as a rejection of Christ when she says “I remain committed to Christ as always…” I guess people hear what they want to hear.
The problem Ms. Rice is pointing to is that Christ is to be central. Not “my demonination is better than yours,” not “if God thinks something is a sin, I must denounce it 24/7…” Let us not be so proud as to pretend that our American materialist version of the gospel is better than Ms. Rice trying to be gay friendly. And if sin is to be denounced all the time, why is it we only pick a couple, and forget the sin that leads to all those shinny BMW’s in the church parking lot, the Kate Spade bags and Johnston and Murphy’s in the pews? Because we are more likely to lust after stuff than be gay…
The song is called “In Christ Alone,” not “In Political, Culture Wars Alone.”
July 30th, 2010 | 5:45 pm
“Quia salus extra ecclesiam non est.”
St. Cyprian of Carthage
July 30th, 2010 | 6:10 pm
Jon Rowe: Don’t worry, you can say “grit” on this website. And, yes, I can see why you might think Sean is full of it. It takes a certain firmness of spirit to reject such a boatload of sophistry.
July 30th, 2010 | 7:14 pm
Anne Rice is a friend of First Things. She has supported the journal by advertising her books in its pages and she reads and has commented on First Things blogs. She is our sister. She deserves our love and our prayers and should not be made the subject of gossip, speculation and ridicule.
I understand Ms Rice’s frustration with “Christianity” as do many friends of First Things. She has a remarkable imagination and great courage (and certainly more courage than the people on this blog who post their writing anonymously). She has been and will continue to be in both my prayers in the prayers of many associated with First Things.
Love her and pray for and with her.
July 30th, 2010 | 7:17 pm
The Dignity of the human person, which is found within our complementary nature as male and female, is endowed to us from God.(The Holy Bible, In The Beginning, when God created man in His Image and called us into a communion of Love) To identify with a disordered sexuality, is to deny this Truth from The Beginning. We are called to Holiness, and in order to be Holy, we must orient ourselves toward The Word of God, Who Has revealed to us that any act that is not oriented to The Will of God, is not an act of Love. Let us agree never to define ourselves or someone else as an object of sexual desire. Let us see one another as Husbands and Wives, Fathers and Mothers, Sons and Daughters, Brothers and Sisters whose only orientation should be towards Perfect Love.
July 31st, 2010 | 11:17 am
Doesn’t homosexuality fall under concupiscence?
We are all inclined to sin and we all have this mental disorder. But when I think of this fact, I am always reminded that God is the perfect father: easy to please but hard to satisfy.
God does not give us a goal we cannot achieve, as difficult as that goal may seem to some of us. But He is also happy with our fits and starts, and is endlessly ready to forgive us when we are truly ready to ask for his forgiveness.
I think we can all agree that Reconciliation is the more underutilized sacrament.
July 31st, 2010 | 12:01 pm
“Say it loud. Say it proud.”
Not without nuance. If you mean “gay” to be a noun, then I am not anti-gay. I was the bookish, creative type in an all-boys school. Having gay friends was inevitable. But if you mean “gay” to be a verb (as in, the act), then yes, I will say it loudly and proudly.
“Christians, especially the radical evangelical right have subverted the teachings of Jesus. Presently, humanitarian “pagans” emanate a more circumspect visage than the arrogant Christians; bearing their righteous campaigns against any perceived fringe groups or opposing faiths.”
Dude, I suggest reading up more on Jesus instead of embracing the chipped plaster statue of Buddy Christ that you seem to be dragging around.
Also, I’ve met some of these “humanitarian” pagans. So, I have to laugh at the notion that they’re somehow “better” than a James Dobson or a Pat Robertson.
“Modern religions are de-evolving into discriminatory rather than inclusionary practices; a direct result of their political agendas which run contrary to the tenets of their celestial origins.”
Yeah, I guess Islam missed out on the inclusionary practices memo.
If you wish to be taken seriously, abandon this notion that Muhammed, Jesus Christ, Moses, or even Buddha were anything like Deepak Chopra. It is, quite frankly, insulting to any member of any serious religious faith.
“How can you mistake her statement as a rejection of Christ when she says “I remain committed to Christ as always…””
We’ve heard enough pompous and self-righteous folk proclaim to be “pro-Christ and anti-Christian”. Problem is, their version of Christ is too much like William’s.
As for the “denominational arguments are bad” angle, its funny that Ms. Rice’s post seem to be mostly laden with culture wars talking points that she holds supreme.
So, “kettle”, I’d like to introduce you a certain “pot”….
July 31st, 2010 | 10:47 pm
Michael Linton says: I understand Ms. Rice’s frustration with “Christianity” as do many friends of First Things.
“Frustation” strikes me as a little weak. This is what Anne Rice is quoted as calling Christians: “a quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group”. I’m not sure if she meant this to apply to all one billion plus Christians living in the world. Perhaps she was selectively quoted, though it’s hard to imagine a context that would make such a statement intelligent.
The funny thing is, this sweeping generalization about Christians might as well have been applied to all of humanity. Human beings are an exasperating species, but to single out Christians as particularly insufferable is just as bigoted as to single out Jews or Muslims. Would Anne Rice have any defenders if she had called the adherents of any other major religion a “deservedly infamous group?”
August 2nd, 2010 | 9:36 am
Dear Michael: You wrote, “Quia salus extra ecclesiam non est.”
(St. Cyprian of Carthage)
I accept this as true; but the question of who is “extra ecclesiam” is beyond our limited judgment at this point. I do not want to write off anyone yet.
August 2nd, 2010 | 9:47 pm
I will state a few things, Matthew 23;8-10 we are to call no man father, master teacher, for there is ONLY ONE , HE is in heaven. We are to confess our sins to no man, but GOD for HE is THE ONLY ONE WHO can forgive us. This anne woman is not a follower of CHRIST if she is not a follower of GOD’S WORD, WHO is CHRIST in THE FLESH, Homosexuality is a stinch to my FATHER’S nostrils an abomination against nature, to support or embrace sin is not to be a child of GOD. Do any of you self proclaiming catholics have any idea what the pope’s official title is? Please research it, all denominations are of men, and are lies distorting GOD’S WORD, CHRIST inone way or the other leading people down the wrong path, for we know everything of man is a lie. Follow GOD’S WORD, CHRIST for HE is THE ONLY TRUTH WAY, and LIFE. As far as love the sinner, hate the sin, I will refer all to Psalms 11;5, Psalms 5;5 for GOD hates all workers of iniquity
August 3rd, 2010 | 12:28 am
[...] Things bloggers Joe Carter, David P. Goldman, Elizabeth Scalia, and Joseph Bottum have already written on this story, and I do [...]
August 5th, 2010 | 9:05 am
No offence to my American brothers and sisters, but I find it almost funny that she conflates the Christian faith with American political and social issues (i.e. “I refuse to be anti-democrat”). She is like many Americans who confuse Christianity with American issues. I am sure the persecuted Christian in another part of the world does not associate the faith with any of the things she has. Nor does he care one bit that she has left the Faith (for which he is suffering) due to left wing social causes. But like most Americans (left and right) she thinks her issues are everyone’s issues. All I can say to Anne is “yawn”.
August 6th, 2010 | 8:45 am
I’m not sure that this is as bad a thing as people are saying. After all, didn’t Christ himself condemn hypocrisy in his Church? I really don’t think we’re supposed to be “anti” anything.
I’ll give you an example: One person said that Christians aren’t necessarily “anti-gay”, just “anti-sin”, and on a basic level, this is true. But isn’t it also true that many Christians think of Gays as lower than themselves, as if their sin is somehow worse than their own? I think we’d all be a lot better off if we realized that everyone who gives the middle finger to the person who cuts them off at an intersection is just as absolutely evil and in need of redemption in the sight of God as the homosexuals are.
Luke 6:42 says: “Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,’ when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother’s eye.” I hope we realize that none of us is more worthy of condemnation than the other. We’re ALL sinners. Without exception. Just because “they” aren’t you doesn’t mean you aren’t just as screwed up as they are.
August 11th, 2010 | 5:07 pm
What I find very illuminating is that – for the alleged ten (10) years you Anne tried to hold on to your beliefs.
I wonder if the driving force was(your secret God talk and promises you made to have faith, just let me be successful).
Your success as the bargaining chip was the intent. God answered your pleas for success and now you feel no need for the very God who gave you the good fortune and talent you had pleaded for.
Well I hope you see that success is directly attributable to God’s favor.
Ultra success is 180 degrees from ultimate failure. Enjoy your wealth and hedonistic logic, but look out God stills holds the key.
He is a patient but jealous God.
It is not Christians that are your problem.
It is your denying the Biblical Context that you are refusing. It is the word of God.
I will pray for you because all God’s children are precious. And hope I see you in the Rapture
Mike Wilson
August 16th, 2010 | 12:54 am
Pastor Spomer,
thank you for clarifying your actual position.
There are so many wolves out there leading sheep astray. My apologies.
August 16th, 2010 | 1:05 am
James, you said:
“I’ll give you an example: One person said that Christians aren’t necessarily “anti-gay”, just “anti-sin”, and on a basic level, this is true. But isn’t it also true that many Christians think of Gays as lower than themselves, as if their sin is somehow worse than their own? I think we’d all be a lot better off if we realized that everyone who gives the middle finger to the person who cuts them off at an intersection is just as absolutely evil and in need of redemption in the sight of God as the homosexuals are.”
The one essential item you have neglected to address is this:
homosexuality is a complete lifestyle of defiance to Jesus Christ. As saved “Christians,” one has the duty to confess AND REPENT of one’s sins. To repent is to turn our backs on the particular sin, not to continually fall or indulge in the particular sin. But this is exactly what the homosexual does. They continually defy Christ with their lifestyle.
And where the apparent confusion or ignorance or whatever you wish to call it is this:
not that the sin of homosexuality is greater than others, but that homosexuality is indeed sin. And an unrepentant lifestyle does not lead to salvation.
The main point:
Homosexuality is a sin. You seem to have already grasped this and acknowledged it. The problem is with a society whose lost the value of sin. And with the homosexual who denies his sin.
August 16th, 2010 | 10:43 am
Steve K, What I think you fail to realize it that failing to fully turn our backs on sin is a perpetual state of humanity. In a way, we all live a “lifestyle” of sin because we all have sin that is unconfessed and unrepented of.
For every sin we turn our backs on, there is another that we don’t even realize we’ve done (or more likely don’t want to) that remains unconfessed. This is most likely the state of homosexuals that confess Christ as their Lord and Savior. They simply don’t know the word of God enough to realize what they’re doing. But, if their conversion was genuine, they will be convicted by the Spirit of the sin in their life and come to repentance. This is something shared by all Christians, for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.
Also, for every sin we turn our backs on, there is the potential for us to return to it in a moment of weakness. None of us will ever fully conquer any sin. None of us will ever be sinless. Which is why we all need an equal measure of his grace and mercy for salvation. The word says that even our best efforts are as filthy rags in God’s sight. We’re all equal in the sight of God.
Also, I fully understand the value and the horror of sin. But I look only on my own sin and not to the sins of others. I’m trying to get the mote out of my own eye before I presume to get the splinter out of theirs. I think the kingdom would be a lot better off if we all did that. I realize that I, and I ALONE, am the absolute moral equal of Hitler, Stalin, and every evil man who has ever lived. In the sight of God, I persecuted the Jews. I flew a plane into two buildings in New York and left thousands as widows and orphans. I led the world to ruin a thousand times. This is why I need salvation. Because the scope and scale of the evil that I ALONE have done procludes me from ever being worthy of life in Heaven in the sight of God.
And these truths are the same for everyone. I don’t think I’m arrogant. I just realize that I don’t have the right to condemn anyone when I’m so broken. And of course, as we continue in our walk with God, we grow and we improve, but never enough to earn salvation of the back of our own self-righteousness.
Thanks for listening.
August 17th, 2010 | 3:14 am
Anthony…. I feel bad that you’ve turned yourself into an un-thinking vessel of wasted life. Word of advice, put down Anne Rice for a day or two and pick up the Bible… it also happens to be a best seller ; )
August 17th, 2010 | 11:33 am
Todd, I’m pretty sure Anthony was being ironic.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact