As many of you know, Anne Rice was writing about vampires long before Buffy, Bella, and Sookie Stackhouse were household names, and many followed with interest her conversion to Christianity back in 2005.Well, it looks like Ms. Rice's days as a churchgoer are pretty much over....
She announced on Facebook that:
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.
More specifically, she writes:
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.
If I could sit down with Rice and ask her some clarifying questions, I'd be most interested to find out where she got the idea that Jesus expects her to be "anti-" all the stuff she lists in her renouncement of Christianity. To be sure, the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin, as well as that Adam was a historical figure and the representative father of the human race, but this is a far cry from saying that Christianity is "anti-gay" or "anti-science." And where the idea comes from that the Bible's position is "anti-Democrat" is completely beyond me.
There's a difficult conundrum here. On the one hand, there is no meaningful sense in which a person can claim to be a Christian while disassociating him- or herself from the Christian Church. You simply can't choose the Head while rejecting the Body. After all, we're not Gnostics last time I checked.
On the other hand, though, Christians can be so bloody annoying that I can hardly blame those who don't want anything to do with us. Speaking generally, we come off as jingoistic and bloodthirsty, bigoted and homophobic. Our militant patriotism (and patriotic militarism) appear to many to be sheer racist xenophobia wrapped in religious rhetoric, which makes it all the more chilling. When we act like homosexuality is the grand meta-sin whose practitioners are destined for hotter regions of hell than other more normal, socially-acceptable fornicators, we come off as lacking the love and compassion that our Lord surely feels for those who struggle in this way.
The solution to this conundrum, of course, is not quitting Christianity the way Rice has done, nor should it involve having to unquestioningly adopt the Evangelical Manifesto, either. If only we could somehow find a way to stop importing all our favorite cultural opinions into the Christian religion, we may actually be able to present our faith to the world in such a way as to let it answer the questions it was designed to address, rather than shoving down culture's collective throat its supposed solutions to all the problems it was never intended to fix in the first place.
Sure, Anne Rice may still decide she doesn't like Christianity, but at least then she'd dislike it for the right reasons.
Very well said, Jason. I was thinking of writing something about this very subject at BTB, but you have excelled above and beyond my thoughts on the subject.
ReplyDeleteRice wants to be a follower of Christ while eschewing his ethics found in the Old Testament which he claimed not to have come to destroy. Rice's creed might be "ethics above substance." She puts the cart before the horse by judging a system by its ethics (albeit misunderstood ethics).
That is disappointing and hopefully by grace she re-examines things.
ReplyDeleteWhat if instead of leaving the Christian church altogether she had instead announced that she was starting a Christian church that was all the things that she felt she needed to be?
A pro-gay, pro-feminist, pro-artificial birth control, pro-Democrat, pro-secular humanism, pro-science, and pro-life church?
Would that be better than what she is doing here? Or worse? Or no different?
How in the world did she misunderstand what Catholicism was all about, what with the infallible Magisterium and all?
ReplyDeleteSean,
ReplyDeleteWhat if instead of leaving the Christian church altogether she had instead announced that she was starting a Christian church that was all the things that she felt she needed to be?
Now you're talking. If this whole PCA gig doesn't work out I have a great cult I'm hoping to start. We've got a statement of faith and a color scheme, I just haven't settled on a name yet.
In all seriousness, you do agree, don't you, that it is anachronistic (as well as silly) to insist that the religion Jesus started has a position on the DNC/GOP debates? You see, this is the problem with conflating the two kingdoms--it forces believers to choose sides in the culture war based on extra-biblical factors, and then divides us against one another to the point where if you're not willing to pull the troops from Afghanistan then you may not understand the gospel.
Let earth be earth, is what I'm saying.
Jason.
ReplyDeleteIn all seriousness, you do agree, don't you, that it is anachronistic (as well as silly) to insist that the religion Jesus started has a position on the DNC/GOP debates?
Absolutely. But I do think the church has the right (God given) to define morals and sacraments for us. Hence, I don't see the church's definition of a sacramental marriage to consist of one man and one woman to be a two kingdoms issue. Do you? (Notwithstanding the 'sacramental' element...maybe just call it 'covenantal' for this question)
Sean,
ReplyDeleteI do think the church has the right (God given) to define morals and sacraments for us. Hence, I don't see the church's definition of a sacramental marriage to consist of one man and one woman to be a two kingdoms issue. Do you?
I would say that Scripture clearly teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman. But there's a lot more complexity to it than that.
For example, where in divine revelation do we find the idea that the state should sanction marriage and grant to those who marry certain financial and other kinds of incentives? And once the state has decided to do that (which I'm fine with), who's to say that they can't choose to give those blessings to people whose marriages the Bible doesn't recognize?
So to apply the 2K logic to the issue, we'd have to say that the church reserves the right to recognize certain marriages as valid and reject others as invalid, even if they're legal. And when it comes to untangling the legal mess, the church (if it adheres to sola scriptura) must simply plead ignorance. We're not political scientists, after all.
I feel Rice’s pain. Converting out of broad secularism into broad funda-evangelicalism was nothing if not fraught with if-this-is-Christianity-I-want-a-refund-on-my-soul-so-I-can-sell-it-back-to-the-devil-please moments. But she seems to be throwing the ecclesiastical baby out with the cultural bathwater. And the ironic twist is in how she is showing her modernist slip here, which is the same impulse that drives the Christian culture she’s flipping off. In some sense, Rice is wiping a dirty nose with an oily rag. Sometimes a dirty nose is so annoying you'll reach for anything, even an oily rag, so I get it, but, well, the problem seems sort of obvious.
ReplyDeleteBut I do think the church has the right (God given) to define morals and sacraments for us.
Blogohon-Sean, have you considered that nobody needs the church or her book to tell them the rules for marriage? It’s in the book of general revelation. Everybody knows it’s between one man and one woman because it’s a creational ordinance, not a redemptive one. I wonder if the refusal to distinguish between creation and redemption is one factor in making marriage a sacrament.
A pro-gay, pro-feminist, pro-artificial birth control, pro-Democrat, pro-secular humanism, pro-science, and pro-life church?
ReplyDeleteYou mean the PCUSA, right?
the church reserves the right to recognize certain marriages as valid and reject others as invalid, even if they're legal
ReplyDeleteActually more than that, WCF 24 explicitly reserves the right to reject certain marriages as not legal.
where in divine revelation do we find the idea that the state should sanction marriage
When it comes to that, where in divine revelation do we find that the church should perform marriage ceremonies, or that there can be a distinction between "christian marriage" and merely "civil marriage"? What church ever has or would require civilly-married converts to remarry in the church? (Although I bet there are not a few churches that would get bent out of shape if a Christian couple wanted to forgo a church wedding and opt for merely the Justice of the Peace...)
Blogohon-Sean, have you considered that nobody needs the church or her book to tell them the rules for marriage? It’s in the book of general revelation.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Matthew 22, 1 Corinthians 7, and Ephesians 5, along with other various and sundry ancient Semitic writings.
Actually more than that, WCF 24 explicitly reserves the right to reject certain marriages as not legal.
ReplyDeleteBut since she doesn’t have the power to actually create marriages (the power to only convey marriage is vested in her ministers by the state which actually has the power to create) that doesn’t mean the church may actually dissolve certain marriages. It means she may put stipulations on persons who desire church membership, as in repent and convert that fornication into marriage.
Also, Matthew 22, 1 Corinthians 7, and Ephesians 5, along with other various and sundry ancient Semitic writings.
Andrew, I didn’t say the rules for marriage don’t exist in special revelation. I said nobody needs special revelation to know them. The Bible also includes the rules for good citizenship and that we should pay our taxes, but from what I can tell when I observe perfect pagans, they already know that as well.
I see your agreement that the church may not create marriages (so why do ministers accept vested power from the state?), and probably that does mean that the church cannot dissolve any marriages. But WCF 24 is not talking about fornications which can be converted into marriage, but about polygamy and incest. The language of WCF doesn't seem to admit of the category "legal but invalid" (as JJS describes), but rather "not made lawful [or valid] by any law of man." So the church would not be dissolving marriages, but merely recognizing invalid and unlawful unions to be invalid and unlawful. Or another way to say it, the church wouldn't need to dissolve invalid marriages, because no law of man would actually create an invalid marriage.
ReplyDeleteAnother way to say it; perhaps it is true that the state has delegated its power to create marriages to the church, so the church cannot actually create marriages contrary to the State's laws (i.e. a couple that lies about already being married). Likewise, God has delegated power to the state to create marriages, so the state cannot actually create marriages contrary to God's laws (i.e. an incestuous or homosexual couple).
ReplyDeleteBut WCF 24 is not talking about fornications which can be converted into marriage, but about polygamy and incest.
ReplyDeleteRube, I only used fornication as an example. I doubt the spirit of WCF 24 would be to say that it doesn’t care about fornication just because it specifically has polygamy and incest in mind. Does it help if I also say, “Repent and stop polygamying and incesting”?
The language of WCF doesn't seem to admit of the category "legal but invalid" (as JJS describes), but rather "not made lawful [or valid] by any law of man."
I think the point of “legal but invalid” is simply to say that “even though the magistrate has called your union ‘lawful’ it really isn’t if you want to join the church, so whatever is involved, please get that straightened out (pun sort of intended) first.” In other words, there are two kinds of “lawful,” one is what the state says and the other is what the church says. Sometimes they dovetail, sometimes not so much.
So the church would not be dissolving marriages, but merely recognizing invalid and unlawful unions to be invalid and unlawful.
I’d rather say, “Yeah, your polygamous union is perfectly valid and lawful per the state’s formulation, but it’s perfectly invalid and unlawful per the church’s.” I mean, when someone has legal papers proving things are on the up-and-up isn’t it a little silly to say they don’t? Wouldn’t it seem better to distinguish between worldly and ecclesial formulations?
Likewise, God has delegated power to the state to create marriages, so the state cannot actually create marriages contrary to God's laws (i.e. an incestuous or homosexual couple).
Sure it can. If it can grant no-fault divorces why can’t it grant polygamous or homosexual marriages? But again, I think the key here is civil versus ecclesiastical distinctions.
there are two kinds of “lawful,” one is what the state says and the other is what the church says
ReplyDeleteMaybe call them "lawful" vs "legal"? But my point is exactly that WCF 24 crashes through civil vs. ecclesiastical distinctions with the phrase "Nor can such incestuous marriages ever be made lawful by any law of man." WCF is unwilling to concede "OK, well, your paperwork from the state is somehow meaningful." You must admit that the language of WCF 24 is not 2K language.
"If it can grant no-fault divorces"
Who says it can? WCF 24.5,6 goes on to lay out adultery and desertion as the only "cause[s] sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage." Therefore, confessionally, a no-fault divorce is not a valid divorce, and a confessional pastor should not remarry no-fault-divorcees (nor recognize remarriages of no-fault-divorcees). I realize that would bring down the hammer on lots of happily remarried in Reformed churches, but I'm just sayin', that's what the confession sez.
Zrim,
ReplyDeleteSo far as I can tell, circumstances being what they are, most people do need special revelation in order to discern some truths that are, in principle, obtainable by way of reason alone. I mean, Jesus and Paul, et al, didn't say all that stuff unnecessarily. We can learn a lot from Scripture (and, I think, from the Church) about all kinds of stuff that we share (in some way) with all humans.
Sorry Ann...
ReplyDeleteThis is a interesting movie trailer referencing Christianity’s involvement in formation of freedom in the world and in America. As much as people would like to separate the two for whatever personal or religious reasons I do not think Christianity's influence in the present or the future of America will ever cease to exist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLpGs5zlcxM&feature=player_embedded
What makes Rice so different from Kierkegaard here?
ReplyDeleteOn March 31, 1855, an article entitled "What Do I Want?" appeared in The Fatherland, wherein Kierkegaard writes:
ReplyDelete"Quite simply—I want honesty. I am not, as one man with the best of intentions has desired to represent me, I am not Christian severity contrasted with Christian leniency. Not at all. I am neither severity nor leniency—I am...mere human honesty. I want honesty. If that is what this race and this generation want, if it will uprightly, honestly, frankly, openly, directly rebel against Christianity and say to God, "We can, but we will not be subject to this authority"—but observe that it must be done uprightly, honestly, frankly, openly, directly—well then, strange as it may seem, I am for it; for honesty is what I want. And wherever there is honesty I can take part. An honest rebellion against Christianity can only be made when one honestly admits what Christianity is and how one is related to it."
So far as I can tell, circumstances being what they are, most people do need special revelation in order to discern some truths that are, in principle, obtainable by way of reason alone.
ReplyDeleteAndrew,
The distinction here is between natural knowledge and supernatural knowledge. Nobody needs the Bible to know that murder and stealing are wrong because everyone knows that by nature. (If this weren’t so then some could plead not guilty by reason of never having read the Bible. That’s insane.) We need special revelation to supernaturally know what we don’t naturally know, namely how to be reconciled to God.
Zrim,
ReplyDeleteThere is a two-fold distinction between natural and supernatural knowledge: (1) with respect to what is known; (2) with respect to how it is known. Thus, for many people, what can, in principle, be known by reason alone (e.g., the existence of God, moral laws), is actually known by way of faith, on the basis of authority. This is especially true for those more recondite areas of natural and moral theology. Just because something can be known by reason doesn't mean that it will be known by reason. This is why divine revelation includes many truths that are, in principle, otherwise knowable. Thus, special revelation clarifies, for the believer, certain truths that were only dimly apprehendedthrough reason.
Furthermore, to stick with the example at hand, at least some of the facts about marriage fall into the category of things that cannot, in principle, be apprehended by reason alone. There are truths about marriage that cannot be known except through special revelation (cf. Eph 5:31-32). The same is true, of course, about God, Jesus of Nazareth, etc.
I suppose that my point is that it is important to recognize the distinction between reason and faith, creation and redemption, but it is just as important not to drive a wedge between them.
I suppose that my point is that it is important to recognize the distinction between reason and faith, creation and redemption, but it is just as important not to drive a wedge between them.
ReplyDeleteAndrew, pardon, but I’m not sure how a careful distinction ends up making a redemptive sacrament out of the creational ordinance of marriage. And when a church assigns itself a postal zip code and all manner worldly trappings it’s hard not to distinguish more robustly between creation and redemption, even if some want to crudely term that “driving a wedge.”
Hey Zrim,
ReplyDeleteThe redemptive significance of marriage, which I agree is a creational ordinance, is found, for example, in Ephesians 5:22-33. Paul refers to marriage as a sacrament (mysterion).
If this weren’t so then some could plead not guilty by reason of never having read the Bible. That’s insane.
ReplyDeleteWhich would then give them a foundation on which to build a plea for insanity -- it's brilliant! Z, you should have been a criminal defense lawer...
But, Rube, everything I know I learned from DA Jack McCoy.
ReplyDeleteMy pastor used the Anne Rice quote to start his sermon a couple of weeks ago. He also used the Ghandi quote "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." His point was to illustrate how we as Christians are not engaging the broken world around us as we should.
ReplyDelete