Anne Rice made this announcement today on her Facebook page (HT):
First, I know what she means (and I am sympathetic) but being Christian does not equate with being anti-gay, anti-feminist, anti-artificial birth control, anti-Democrat, anti-this, or anti-that. What this tells me is that Anne Rice is not pleased with the church unless it acts, believes, and looks like her. Jesus said the world would know we are his disciples because of our love for one another, not our uniformity in all matters.
That brings me to my second point: there is no following Christ without being part of the church. That is like speaking of being born absent being part of the human race. I am sure she feels “different” (she is not alone) than other Christians but following Jesus is (a) never an individualistic endeavor and (2) never to be done only with people who are like minded in all areas of politics, sociology, economics, ecology, or any other sub -ology and -ism.
While I am sure (as the comments totals shows) that there are many people applauding Rice today I am not one of them. What all these people forget to recognize is that your Christianity is not necessarily the right Christianity. Contrary to belief you are just as messed up and mistaken as the rest of us. We remain faithful to the church because we recognize we all are flawed. If you don’t see that I am not sure how you can boast of following Christ.
the archives near Emmaus 
Pretty much exactly what I was going to post today, point for point.
I agree, Brian.
And that is all perspective to view your faith as an “anti” instead of a “for.” He came to not only give dead people life, but life abundantely. That’s our message. The moral issues we grapple with as a community are side issues. While the church is most definitely anti-sin, that is not our Message. Our message is not the “anti” it’s the “for” — “For God so loved the world, that He gave his only Son… whoever believes on Him will not perish but have eternal life.”
Bryan: The more places the better!
James: Amen.
“…being Christian does not equate with being anti-gay, anti-feminist, anti-artificial birth control, anti-Democrat, anti-this, or anti-that.”
Are you sure about this? This is the common caricature, and one reason I avoid this label. I agree with your comments, mostly, but our cultural perceptions don’t line up with your first paragraph. I don’t see much of what is in the Bible in today’s American Christianity. Also, I don’t understand where you are getting the individualistic vibe from, she is only distancing herself from the Christian religion, not followers of Jesus Christ.
I am trying to avoid self-labels, and now tend to label myself more by my profession than my faith. If I do try to explain my religious stance it is usually to say that I follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. A few weeks ago I decided on a new label for use within Christian circles, though I’ve not used it yet: Continuationist.
Thanks for the post!
Thanks for the post Bri! Amen.
Nathan,
Yes, I am sure. I don’t see anything about those in Antioch who were first called “Christians” being known for these things. We have creeds. These creeds say what we are about at our core. These issues are not in those creeds.
I am not so worried about our cultural perceptions. I am not going to disregard the title “Christian” because some Christians did bad things any more than I will deny I am a citizen of the United States because our country has done some bad things. All this says is that I think I have done better at following Christ that others who have been called Christians so I must distance myself in order for the world to see someone who really gets this Jesus following thing right.
This is exactly what Rice is doing. If I say “I love America but I refused to be called an ‘America'” this seems a bit odd. A Christian is a Christ follower. The Christian religion is the people across the world who claim the same thing. At the core Rice is denouncing Christ followers, not just a religious system.
We need to avoid the fallacy that Christians are people without a religion. We are not just “spiritual” or “in a relationship”. Christ established something more than those modern, cutesy terms.
Damariz,
You’re welcome.
“I don’t see anything about those in Antioch who were first called “Christians” being known for these things.”
Were they not known to be anti-idol worship, anti-eating meat, anti-violence, anti-paying taxes (something the Apostle had to clean up), anti-Rome, anti-death, anti-sin?
Are our attitudes not sometimes influenced by the increasing pluralism in society today?
Ronald,
Point well taken, but I think that the first Christians (and many, many, many today) sought to be known by what we are “for”. Monotheistic loyalty, pro-life, pro-holiness. There were surely mixed feelings about Rome, taxes, and food but again those were all an attempt at fidelity to the Lord Jesus Christ.
I know that for every “for” there is an inherent “against” but (to use an extreme example) we are not to be like the Westboro Baptist Church. We should not be defined by what we are against to the point that no one knows what we are for.
“We should not be defined by what we are against to the point that no one knows what we are for.”
What if this is already the case?
I understand your points, but I am very leery of attaching myself to the political machinery and neo-dogma that has taken over my former religion. I will still on occasion refer to myself as Christian to someone that knows me well, but in general conversation I avoid it. This has been a very difficult topic for me in the past two years, and has also included the American citizenship topic that you briefly mentioned.
Nathan,
If this is the case then we need to be pro-active about correcting this misconception. It would be lazy of me to allow others to abduct a title that is associated with my Lord in order to use it for their different programs. I would much rather do the hard work of saying “I am a Christian” and then explain what that does and does not mean.
I am not sure that I am up to correcting misconceptions or fighting against mass media. It seems more practical to drop the label and use a better one, or none at all. You make good points though, just not sure that I can bring myself to believe that they are the best option.
I find it more impractical to try to explain a faith that already has a helpful name. I can’t imagine saying, “I am not a Christian but I follow Christ”. What does that even mean?
There is no short answer to that question. But the term “Christian” has some serious baggage associated with it, and as a label it is hard to accept in our current cultural climate.
Not only does the term “Christian” have serious baggage, so does the name “Jesus.” Does she seriously think that by abandoning Christianity and claiming to follow Christ that she will rid herself of stereotypes and ill-conceived images of Christ’s followers? Hardly. It’s absurd to think that you can follow Christ apart from his church. Our good friend, the evil vicar, might put it this way: “Follow Christ and forsake Christianity? Are you testing me, Satan?” 🙂
Nathan: Why should we care about our current cultural climate? We should care about Christianity being misrepresented, yes. But we have no obligation to make the world smile. And I must add that the climate was much worse when our faith was born.
Jason: It is absurd. In addition, my assumption is that if the world really, really likes the Jesus we claim to worship we probably are misrepresenting him. For instance, the Jesus of the “Jesus Seminar” is one beloved chap and this is because he is a good moralistic teacher. That being said, we must pick and choose which morals we like and don’t like. We like him tearing into the rich; we don’t like his sexual ethics. In the end we are likely in better shape if the world hates us because they hated him.
That being said we should not seek to be hated for the sake of being hated (i.e. being jerks over various secondary issues).
Brian:
If people know what we’re against then they should be able to figure out what we’re for and vice versa. If I’m pro-holiness then I’m anti-sin. Not all that difficult a concept. And I’d say the early Church was as much “anti” as they were “pro” anything. The Gospels, Acts, and the Epistles are all full of both stuff to do and not to do. It’s just as problematic to only talk about what we’re for while keeping what we’re against in the background so as not to offend as it is to talk about what we’re against to the exclusion of what we’re for. In other words, it’s a false dichotomy, there doesn’t have to be either/or when it can just as easily be both/and.
Nathan:
I’m a little unclear on why that should matter. Our “current cultural climate” is increasingly anti-Christ; should we then conform to what culture says?
Nick: This is true and I recognize these things are inseparable. I am emphasizing that there is a “cart-before-the-horse” problem that sometimes occurs when people don’t know why we are against this or that. Too often we let society frame this for us. We are seen as against abortion because we are against women’s rights (rather than pro-life). We are against homosexuality for dozens of reasons with hardly any of them being grounded in why Christians really find this concerning. I could go on and on. If we lead with what we support showing how this influences what we oppose I think we are leading with the right foot. Nevertheless, the left foot must follow.
“If people know what we’re against then they should be able to figure out what we’re for and vice versa. If I’m pro-holiness then I’m anti-sin. Not all that difficult a concept.”
Nick,
For some it is a difficult concept. For instance, in Christology, some deny either Jesus’ humanity or divinity on the basis that humanity is not divinity or vice versa. But you and I know very well that one is human and/or divine based on whether that person possesses a human nature and/or divine nature. Let’s say we have a robot named Jake. I could say that Jake does not possess a divine nature, but one couldn’t conclude that Jake is human. I could also say that Jake does not have a human nature, but that wouldn’t mean he is divine.
In a similar sense, we can’t assume that people will know what we are for if we only tell them what we are against. Your statement “If I’m pro-holiness then I’m anti-sin” fills in both ends. But, unfortunately, some only state the anti- and not the pro-.
It seems I was a bit misunderstood. I meant that our current cultural climate has a view of Christianity that is closely tied to politics and policies that don’t represent my faith. I believe that this is what Anne Rice was referring and reacting to. The baggage I was referring to had nothing to do with the Bible, but with politics and the caricaturization in various media. Sorry for not being more clear the first time around.
I can see that I’m in the minority here in that I closely identify with Anne Rice. 8)
I guess I should probably come out and say it directly. I believe that the definition of the word “Christian” has changed or is currently undergoing change. I don’t believe that the term accurately describes my faith, and that is why I shy away from using it to describe myself now. I don’t find myself accurately described by a historical term that has a new (or changing) meaning.
If we step outside of (American) culture and look at the historical meaning, then yes, I am a Christian. However, if terminology gets hijacked for political reasons, then I don’t see a problem with using different terminology. It would be nice if Christianity didn’t have so many negative connotations attached (baggage) but the fact is it does. If the new definition doesn’t reflect the teachings in the Bible, then I prefer a different term/label.
Sorry for the back to back comments.
Oh, brother.
I frankly didn’t care when she found religion, and I sure don’t care now that she’s quit it. Perhaps she should have spent more time exploring (and in time, acquiring) an authentically Christian worldview, which would have lead her to the place from which Brian admirably speaks, rather than writing vapid religiously themed novels in her post-conversion frenzy.
*steps off his soapbox*
Nathan,
I used to think the same way until I read Bonhoeffer’s Life Together!
Esteban,
Very true. She went from celebrity to church-dipped celebrity to your average, vague spirituality with Christian flavoring.
We now supposedly can’t use the words religion, pious, innerancy, evangelical, and a host of others. Now the term Christian itself because of whiners like that?
I wish I was smart enough to say what Esteban said.
Jeff
Although I understand her frustration I don’t understand her solution. I mean she can find plenty of denominations that completely agree with her about those things. Wait, isn’t/wasn’t she Catholic? Maybe she didn’t feel there were any alternatives in the Catholic church. If that’s the case then someone should introduced her to Protestantism.
Jeff: This is exactly the problem. Once we begin scattering around changing ourselves in fear of how the world might perceive us we are bound to find ourselves in an endless cycle.
Bryan: I would hope she is aware that there are other options than Rome! I can’t imagine her being totally ignorant of the Orthodox or Protestantism.
Brian: I think what you’re saying is noble enough, just not realistic, at least for Christians. It’s silly to think that we should spell out our positions on the sanctity of life or the human body before stating that we’re vehemently against murder or rape. People instinctively know that murder and rape are wrong, and “society” on the whole accepts this, so we don’t have to lay out the positives with those things. But because “society” (= anti-Christian society) doesn’t feel the same about abortion and homosexuality (to take your examples) as it does about these things the situation is somehow changed? Nah.
I’m curious about the motivation for your approach here. Is it to simply not offend? Is it to be understood clearly? Is it to persuade others of your faith?
JohnDave: I think what you’re describing is a different animal altogether. The dual natures of Christ is obviously a unique situation that really has no analogy. It would be more analogous with my point to say that if one is a Christian then they’re clearly not “anti-Christ.” I’m talking generally about antithetical propositions with the understanding that people cannot coherently maintain contradictory positions. Sure, they can do it incoherently, but most folks strive to make sense.
Nathan: I’m still not sure that I’m following you. I guess the problem I’m having is that I think you’re notion of the changing definition of the word “Christian” is more phantasmal than anything else.
Esteban: She’s the one who wrote the vampire books, right? I didn’t know she was a Christian before today. But I guess she’s not anymore, so… 😐
Bryan: Yeah, maybe, but they’re still calling themselves Christians and she doesn’t want to be one of those!
Nick,
Surely it has nothing to do with offense. If someone needs to be offended about something I do not have a problem with that. I do think offense for the sake of offense is wrong but offense for the sake of something truthful and good is not.
While bringing people to faith is surely important I am not sure if that is as important as being understood clearly as far as motivation is concerned. Often I have seen good ideas dismissed because people assume that they come from a root other than that which they do. Again, let us use homosexuality as an example. I don’t want to be dismissed in a conversation on this subject because I am lumped in with someone who comes at this subject from an angle I do not share. I don’t want to allow my discussion partner to easily dismiss me as homophobic because s/he has met such a person. Instead, I want to be heard for the reasons why I think such and such about that activity/life-style/social issue. If I am offensive at that point so be it. At least I was allowed to convey my thoughts on the matter without allowing someone to lazily label me.
Those poor Romanists and their deficient ecclesiology.
Brian,
Point taken.
I’m with you Brian, I think her actions were not good. You either are or aren’t Chrisitan, and defining your Chrisitanity with periferal fine print is childish. Christians agree and Christians disagree. Rice’s comments remind me of the elistist Corinthian assertion, “I am of Christ.” “I am above your petty differances, and am a truely enlightened Christian because I am not Christian… I follow Christ.”
How ridiulous, i’m pretty sure that I remember my Sunday school teacher saying, “Is Christ divided?” Certainly her motive of pure religion is honorable, but making aloof acuisations and burshing broad strokes across the very faith she proffesses is not what Paul encouraged in Corinth. Infact I think he said, “not cool Anne Rice.”
I understand a book like Leithart’s Against Christianity. I’m not so sympathetic to Rice. After all, there are plenty of negative ethical imperatives in the faith contained in the Canon…like “thou shalt not eat of it” or the “thou shalt not” of Sinai, and many so forths. Sorry, Anne, God isn’t neutral on the ethical issues you mention.
Roger: Good example: I forgot about those Corinthians that pulled this same move two thousand years ago!
Anne Rice’s comments and the publicity given to her perspectives is yet one more way the common media attempts to dismember and separate Christians from the truth of their faith. If they can but convince Christians that their faith is merely a buffet line of options from which they can choose and yet all be “equally Christian” then they effectively separate Christians from the root-stock of their faith and free them from any unity of action, purpose or belief. To be a “Christian” a follower-of -Christ suggests that you believe what Christ preached. We know these teachings only from Scripture and perhaps from tradition. As we know Him in Scripture Christ is not some kind of “free-love, everyone is okay where they are” modern day yogi. Instead He carefully introduces a system of beliefs and calls men to change and then “sin no more.” Let us not forget the story of the lambs and the sheep and the like. To allow someone to re-write what it means to be Christian or to re-define Christ is meaningless. It is on par with suggesting that a McDonalds cheeseburger is low fat, low salt, low cholesterol. If it was not such a serious topic, it would be nonsensical. Read Scripture………know who Christ is……..if you want to be a Christian then accept and follow……..but don’t try to create your own version of the Man-God………or He just becomes a man………
Jack,
Well said. Media outlets like the Huffington Post really grabbed this story didn’t they. We need to remain unified in our differences. This would say more to the world that the actions of Anne Rice did.
Nick,
You’re right that these are different animals. My point, which may have gotten lost in my attempt to use analogy, is that to state what one isn’t doesn’t really tell anyone what one is. For example, to say that one is anti-sin doesn’t automatically mean that one is pro-holiness (one could dislike sin and refrain from it but never strive toward holiness). Both your examples (pro-holiness/anti-sin and Christian/not-anti-Christ) tell us the “is” and so it is easier to see the “not”; but stating the “not” first without the “is” can leave people guessing. To go back to my robot analogy, assuming that people don’t know Jake is a robot, I tell someone, “Jake is neither human nor divine,” can one exactly figure out that Jake is a robot? I’ve stated the “not,” but is that enough to figure out exactly the “is”?
JohnDave: Then we really run into the same problem whether we’re affirming or denying, i.e., without doing both people will never know what we believe. If I say, “I’m pro-holiness,” there might be an unstated, “but I’m all for sin as well,” or, “but I don’t think sin is wrong for other folks,” lying hidden in the background.
Lol… this reminded me of what Paul said, something about belonging to “that sect which is evil spoken of,” or something like that. Also, I learned not too long ago that when the word Christian first came into usage in Antioch it was in a derogatory manner. So I’m genuinely not surprised when people want to distance themselves from Christianity, the cross that Jesus asked us to carry daily was after all symbolic of reproach and shame. I find that thought sobering.
Nick,
Yes, we must state both. While I tend to agree with you that by affirming something, there can be an implicit affirmation of the opposite, but I also think that it’s easier to understand what one is against when one states what one is for. Coming back to Jake, if I tell someone Jake is a robot, one could rather easily see that Jake is not human and he is not divine (unless, of course, there’s such thing as a human robot or a divine robot, but I haven’t run across any of those). I think it’s easier to see that pro-holiness implies anti-sin than vice versa. For example, I think of non-Christians and other non-religious people who have very high ethical standards in life based on what they’re against; at the same time, they’re not striving toward holiness as the Lord gives it. I realize that this may be too much of a simplification (non-believers who have a very high ethical standard may still be living sinfully), and that I don’t know how you’re using some of these terms, but I hope that it’s enough to get my point across. Now, there are some who I know to be very devout, and by seeing such devotion to God, it is quite easy to see their anti-sin stance. The ideal that I feel leaves little room for misinterpretation is what you said: stating both affirmation and denial.