Anne Rice “Quits Christianity”

Posted on July 30th, 2010 by Pete Enns

Many are familiar with Anne Rice’s spiritual journey from Roman Catholicism and back again. Just today she announced that she has had it with Christianity and has quit.

In her own words, from the Huffington Post article, which pasted her FB status updates:

On my Facebook account–where all true theological discourse happens–I posted the link to her announcement and the responses have been mixed. Some think it is all contrived, a PR boost for her next book. Others think she is being theologically naive to think she can continue in her Christian journey alone. Others think this is both genuine and understandable.

Feel free to post your thoughts, in a non-disputatious manner.


Tags: contemporary christianity // 14 Comments »

Newer Comments →
  • Benj

    Don't we all have days like this? I'm taking her statements as genuine reflections of the discouragement that we all experience when Christ is not reflected in ourselves and other Christians.

    As Augustine is supposed to have said, “The church is a whore, but she's my mother.” If our faith is in other Christians rather than in Christ, we are most to be pitied.

    I've heard Rice speak, and I think she's sincere. The problem is that FB rewards emotional, premature statements with 2148 likes and 1205 comments. Oh well.

  • Chris E

    I've heard Rice speak about her conversion and believe she was sincere at the time – she also came across as a fairly curious and inquisitive sort.

    I think this sort of personality can be both a curse and a blessing; just being exposed to Christian thought and life for a while is going to throw up a bunch of contradictions – in time your understanding re-configures itself, re-centers itself around a better understanding of Christ and then you continue. This process can repeat itself multiple times. The problem with being a 'public' Christian figure is that this process ends up happening out in the open.

    I would suggest that some of the answers to her problems with the behaviour of Christians are to be found in the Reformation teaching of 'simul justus et peccator' and a deeper understanding of the radical effects of sin. That said, she is going to have to find her own way around to the understanding of these if she is to stay with the faith.

  • http://twitter.com/dwilsonfl dwilsonfl

    Was just in NOLA a few weeks ago at the Father Selos shrine and church. The docent, who was a grace-filled man who really made a profound impression on me – the Baptist pastor and my wife – told us about Rice's return to the church she grew up in and her generosity to it. Having read about her return and now her exit, I think I can understand. She's just at one of those points where we step back and say “why is this worth it?”

    Jesus. That's it. Whatever he loves isn't optional for those who follow. Doesn't mean you don't take long walks every now and then. I'll be praying for her as she walks along the Way.

  • JKnott

    Let me just say, it's sad that so many assume a one-dimensional liberal-conservative spectrum. Which means, you can't be against, say, Jerry Falwell without being, to the same extent, for Bishop Spong. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, etc. It seems clear Rice and many of those commenting on her assume this. Let's try to think in more dimensions.

  • peteenns

    I learned from one of my FB buddies that Rice has a book coming out in 3 months on this very issue of her quitting Christianity. Neither he nor I do not doubt her absolutely sincerity, but the timing suggests to him a PR dimension.

  • David A Booth

    Like most (or perhaps all) of those commenting here – I don't know Anne Rice. So I lack any meaningful insight into where she stands spiritually.

    What I find so interesting about her “quitting Christianity” falls into two categories:

    First, the Roman Catholic Church that Anne Rice is quitting has been abundantly clear about what it believes to be true. Mrs. Rice is not somehow being betrayed by her Church nor was she tricked into joining. Yet, the facebook comments make it seem like the Roman Catholic Church's views have suddenly become shocking. Why strike a moral pose to condemn that Roman Catholic Church instead of merely saying “I don't agree with them and therefore am leaving.” If someone described a liberal group using the language Mrs. Rice did to describe Christians – he or she would be called a bigot. Yet renouncing Christians simply shows how open minded and reasonable a person is. One of the ironies about many tirades against intolerance in our day is that they are not very tolerant.

    Second, I am struck by the first point on Anne Rice's list – her refusal to be anti-gay. Given that her son is a homosexual this is understandably a potentially difficult subject for Mrs. Rice. What interests me about this comment is that I also hear it regularly from teens and young adults. I don't believe that this isn't simply about protecting “homosexual rights” or about being politically correct. Frequently the underlying issue appears to be the desire to be autonomous – a desire that modern western culture constantly nurtures. So people want comfort, well-being, meaning, and to go to heaven when they die. Because the Bible says (with some significant qualifications!) that Jesus provides these things for those who believe in Him – it shouldn't surprise us that many people will say that they believe in Jesus. But Jesus is LORD. It is not possible for someone to be both a “law unto himself or herself (autonomous)” and a follower of Jesus. Hopefully Anne Rice learns that. Hopefully we do too.

  • http://foolishsage.com Foolish Sage

    I sympathize greatly with Anne Rice. I feel like I have in some sense left “Christianity” but not Christ. Some of the critics of her recent admission seem to assume that being a part of Christ (i.e., his Church) means you have to be tied to one of the denominational institutions that claim to be “the Church.” I haven't found this to be so. I still have a Christian community around me, it just isn't institutionalized.

    In response to David's comment about “anti-gay,” I think it is harsh and frankly ignorant to dismiss all of this as mere political correctness and a desire to be hip. Many of us who have come to that place believe it is out of a desire for sincere love of our neighbor, a following of the trajectory of where Jesus was pointing us, even if followers in his day couldn't go all the way there.

    • JKnott

      I have some sympathy with “trajectory” thinking in general, but in my view the trajectories (plural) Jesus' teaching and ministry give us are complex, and to assume that they would necessarily (even likely) lead to anything like the contemporary celebration of homosexual relations strikes me as simplistic and wishful thinking. Jesus' teachings on sex, particularly in comparison to his contemporaries included (1) a raising of the stakes of their importance, (2) a closing of loopholes in the Torah, and most importantly (3) a basis of argumentation in the Genesis narratives.

      • JKnott

        Let me just add that, of course, there was the emphases of (4) extending sexual ethics to the heart and not (merely) external acts, and (5) probably doing away with capital sentencing. These emphases may, in the absence of the others, lead some to believe Jesus was a proto-”liberal” in some sense. But they in no way contradict emphases 1-3, and it is cherry-picking to emphaze 4&5 alone.

    • David A Booth

      Mark,

      I was surprised by your response to your comment until I realized that I hadn't said what I meant to say. Yikes!

      What I wrote was: “I don't believe that this isn't simply about protecting “homosexual rights” or about being politically correct.”

      But I meant to write “is” not “isn't”.

      So, “I don't believe that this is simply about protecting “homosexual rights” or about being politically correct.”

      That probably won't make you like my comment any better – but at least now it means what I wanted it to say.

      David

  • Father of M.A.N.

    Following many of these comments, I believe the issues that are being addressed cannot be fully know without getting more clarification from the source… for instance what does she mean by “anti-gay”? Is it Homophobic? Is it simply against “gay-rights”? Is it speaking in reference to the notion of the “sanctity of Marriage”? What does all of this mean? I have noticed that she puts in these lables, but does not expound, which leaves me wondering. If yo are reading this Anne Rice, we would all like a better explanation so we can better understand your position… perhaps we will just have to read the book.

  • http://twitter.com/drcheard Chris Heard

    Rice is famous, but her statement isn't innovative in the least. It's fairly typical “Jesus yes, church no” rhetoric, as I see it.

  • D.N. Stoddart

    I found this quote from an observer apt: “Surely a woman of her age and experience cannot possibly believe that the entirety of Christianity, current and past, can be reduced to the cultural politics of the United States of America in the 21st century.” Too true, too true.

Newer Comments →
« »