Anne Rice has deconverted, after reconverting, after deconverting, after…
It’s very important that we cover this story. Why, you ask?
Well, the importance of this story ought to be self-evident. For one thing, if a single news outlet covers a story, then the fact that a story is reported is a very important reason to report the reported story.
In addition, Anne Rice is famous for being famous. By making her famous by making her famous, everything she says or does or doesn’t say or do is instantly invested with deep existential significance.
It’s like a TV celebrity who goes on the Late Show, where she talks about the time she went on the Late Late Show–then she goes on the Late Late Show, where she talks about the time she went on the Late Show–then she goes back on the Late Show to talk about…
As a commenter at Pyro noted, 1 John 5 is pretty clear about how God's children should think about/treat one another. In the same way, Christians are to be teachable. As such if Ms/Mrs. Rice is indeed a Christian, she would do well to conform herself to the standards laid down by Christ and His Apostles.
ReplyDeleteConversely, if she is not a Christian, her current behavior wouldn't be out of character.
Either way, I'm sure her book sales will make at least a small jump.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteAnne Rice was responsible for my realization that NT scholarship need not lead to skepticism about the Gospel portrait of Jesus. She's a great writer and she is now harnessing her talent to write about Jesus. Kindly refrain from making fun of her disgust (which I happen to share) with Christian hypocrisy and animosity.
And if you had read the news carefully, you would see that she didn't deconvert, she still believes in Jesus as Lord and Savior, but she is tired of the abuse and hypocrisy within institutional Christianity. A great many Christians throughout history have had similar reactions, including Martin Luther.
You know I respect you for your learning and devotion, but there are times when I think you've lost your ability to empathize with people who don't share your 100%, no holds-barred, 'I know the true faith and everyone else is deluded' temperament-assuming you ever empathized with them at all.
"And if you had read the news carefully, you would see that she didn't deconvert, she still believes in Jesus as Lord and Savior, but she is tired of the abuse and hypocrisy within institutional Christianity. A great many Christians throughout history have had similar reactions, including Martin Luther."
ReplyDeleteExcept Luther was concerned about the truth of scripture. Ann Rice doesn't seem to care too much about scripture.
Steven,
ReplyDeleteDid you read her post-script to "Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt"? She was afraid when she began her NT research that the results would undermine the accuracy of the Gospels and was thrilled to discover the scholarship of people like NT Wright who defended it. She cares deeply about Scripture, she just has a problem with the way it's used all too often in the Church today.
"And if you had read the news carefully, you would see that she didn't deconvert, she still believes in Jesus as Lord and Savior, but she is tired of the abuse and hypocrisy within institutional Christianity. A great many Christians throughout history have had similar reactions, including Martin Luther."
ReplyDeleteLeaving the visible church is a problem, though. Do not forsake the gathering isn't kep by meeting with a like-minded person at Starbucks, where a latte and church-bashing stories are shared. The visible church, where the preaching of the gospel and the adminstration of the sacraments, is a means God uses to keep believers in the faith. I also don't have much sympathy for those who complain about the church's hypocrites and use that for a reason to leave the church. I'm too busy looking at myself, and then looking outward to Jesus, to get high and mighty about how "sinful" every one else is.
Also, Luther didn't leave the institutional church because of the problems he saw. He was a churchman and believed in the means of grace that are properly only administered in the visible church. He preached at a church, married a nun, and *reformed* the church (or at least made some positive moves toward reformation).
So, while Rice may still be a believer, and while she is right about the problems in the church, she is wrong to ditch the church and shake her self-righteous finger at it. Ditching the church is a dangerous thing to do. There's no necessary causal connection, but there is a high correlation (at least from my own personal experience and readings) between those who ditch the church one day ditching the faith later.
While Rice is annoyed by "hypocirisy" in the Church...why does no one call out her hypocrisy where she apparently affirms things Jesus died in order to get rid of?
ReplyDeleteOh yeah, and she seemed to be exaggerating, if not outright slandered Christians by saying we all "hate" feminists, homosexuals, and any woman that might want to use contraception (read: murder their child).
Of course, priests buggering children didn't top her list of hypocrisy.
JD,
ReplyDeleteCould you flesh out a some of what you mean?
In particular, these jumped out at me:
1) "Christian hypocrisy and animosity"
2) "the abuse and hypocrisy within ..."
3) "... institutional Christianity"
Could you provide a succinct explanation/definition for each of those?
Perhaps some of Mrs. Rice's rankels against is be bound up with her embrace of Roman Catholicism, which anathematized the Gospel at the counsel of Trent? Or perhaps she just just being more public with what many of us are private about; namely the uncomfortable process of being conformed (not only in outward appearance) to Christ?
I'll refrain from any pontification about that status of her salvation or any other such matters. And I'll continue to pray for her and hope that she has faith in the Jesus that offers salvation, rather than some other Jesus.
JD WALTERS SAID:
ReplyDelete“Kindly refrain from making fun of her disgust (which I happen to share) with Christian hypocrisy and animosity.”
Which has nothing to do with my post. The manifest point of my post is that we shouldn’t care what a celebrity does just because a celebrity does it. What they say or do carries no larger significance. Fame doesn’t make their actions intrinsically worthy of note.
To my knowledge, she came to fame when one of her vampire yarns was made into a movie starring Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise–back when Cruise was still a box-office draw.
But given the fact that you share her outlook, I can understand your defensiveness. Yet the fact that you take it upon yourself to feel slighted on her behalf is not a principled objection. Rather, it suggests the reaction of somebody who’s a bit too star-struck for his own good.
“And if you had read the news carefully, you would see that she didn't deconvert, she still believes in Jesus as Lord and Savior, but she is tired of the abuse and hypocrisy within institutional Christianity. A great many Christians throughout history have had similar reactions, including Martin Luther.”
I didn’t see her decry hypocrisy and abuse. I saw her decry Catholic positions which conflict with her San Francisco social values.
In addition, her dichotomy between Christ and Christians/Christianity is reminiscent of the schismatics in 1 John.
“You know I respect you for your learning and devotion, but there are times when I think you've lost your ability to empathize with people who don't share your 100%, no holds-barred, 'I know the true faith and everyone else is deluded' temperament-assuming you ever empathized with them at all.”
i) First of all, you’re just as dogmatic as I am about your pet causes, viz. global warming, macroevolution. So you can spare me the false modesty.
ii) In addition, I don’t cheapen empathy the way you do. I have empathy for those who are entitled to empathy. But it’s not as if Rice ever suffered some grave personal miscarriage of justice at the hands of “Christianity.”
As a rule, I don’t think rich, popular, pampered celebrities should be first in line when empathy is handed out. They can take a number and wait in line just like the rest of us. Indeed, they should go to the back of the line and make room for so many more deserving candidates.
"The manifest point of my post is that we shouldn’t care what a celebrity does just because a celebrity does it. What they say or do carries no larger significance. Fame doesn’t make their actions intrinsically worthy of note."
ReplyDeleteThat's true, but you never stopped to consider whether in some cases that fame is justified. You claim that "Anne Rice is famous for being famous," and that's not true. She's famous for being a good writer, and most recently for coming back to faith after a long atheistic spell, and for using a layman's knowledge of NT scholarship to write a best-selling series on the life of Christ. I'd say that entitles her to comment on the state of the Church.
"But given the fact that you share her outlook, I can understand your defensiveness."
Actually I don't share her outlook. I disagree with her on homosexuality and the Church, and a host of other issues. Why would you assume that I do just because I take issue with your flippant dismissal of her?
"I didn’t see her decry hypocrisy and abuse. I saw her decry Catholic positions which conflict with her San Francisco social values."
How much do you know about the way her son has been treated as a result of his being a homosexual? How about doing a bit more research? No doubt her rejection of certain Catholic positions has to do with her having a homosexual son and 'San Francisco social values' (and I disagree with her on this) but there is much more to the story.
"i) First of all, you’re just as dogmatic as I am about your pet causes, viz. global warming, macroevolution. So you can spare me the false modesty."
False modesty, huh? Ask Paul Manata or Chris Price or Michael Sudduth or any of the others I have exchanged with whether they think I exhibit false modesty, or whether on the other hand I am actually very tentative in my judgments, or when I am not and turn out to be mistaken I apologize for the misconception.
Apparently you forgot about our exchange where I said I'm much more skeptical now about global warming, and that I'm embarrassed to have been so dogmatic about it.
And while I think there's good evidence for macro-evolution, that judgment is pending on further research.
And neither of those are (now) what you could call 'pet causes'. I care about macroevolution insofar as it has bearing on how I interpret the Bible and general revelation. I have no stake in defending it, unless it's attacked on the basis of faulty reasoning. That's just your attempt to peg me down as an enthusiastic activist with an agenda who can be dismissed as such.
"ii) In addition, I don’t cheapen empathy the way you do. I have empathy for those who are entitled to empathy. But it’s not as if Rice ever suffered some grave personal miscarriage of justice at the hands of “Christianity.”"
I'm not sure you understand what empathy means. It's not something that's deserved, it is a trait of the person doing the empathizing. It simply means understanding where another person is coming from, the ability to share in another person's feelings to a certain extent.
Empathy is not 'cheapened' by being broadly applied. A wide circle of empathy only enriches the one doing the empathizing. Even if the other person does not reciprocate: If you only love them who love you, what reward do you have?
I guess I was wrong to try to have a conversation with you. Your mind is made up on far more issues than mine is, and like a novice teacher you just can't conceive how anyone in their right mind could possibly see things differently.
JD WALTERS SAID:
ReplyDelete“That's true, but you never stopped to consider whether in some cases that fame is justified. You claim that ‘Anne Rice is famous for being famous,’ and that's not true. She's famous for being a good writer…”
Seems to me what made her famous is that two famous movie stars made a popular film based on one of her novels (Interview with the Vampire).
“...and most recently for coming back to faith after a long atheistic spell…”
No one would pay attention unless she was already famous due to the movie.
“I'd say that entitles her to comment on the state of the Church.”
The question is not whether she’s entitled to comment on the state of the Church. Rather, the question is whether anybody should care what she says just because she’s a celebrity. That’s the point of my post.
And as far as that goes, she doesn’t have any qualifications to comment on the state of the Church that millions of other Christians lack.
“Why would you assume that I do just because I take issue with your flippant dismissal of her?”
Because you said you share her outlook (“…her disgust (which I happen to share) with Christian hypocrisy and animosity.”).
“How much do you know about the way her son has been treated as a result of his being a homosexual?”
The Catholic church is notoriously soft on homosexuals.
“…or whether on the other hand I am actually very tentative in my judgments…”
That’s certainly not how you phrase some of your public positions.
“Apparently you forgot about our exchange where I said I'm much more skeptical now about global warming, and that I'm embarrassed to have been so dogmatic about it. ”
Last time we discussed it, you were pretty adamant, as I recall.
Cont. “I have no stake in defending it, unless it's attacked on the basis of faulty reasoning. That's just your attempt to peg me down as an enthusiastic activist with an agenda who can be dismissed as such.”
ReplyDeleteYou certainly act as if you have a stake in defending it.
“I'm not sure you understand what empathy means. It's not something that's deserved, it is a trait of the person doing the empathizing. It simply means understanding where another person is coming from, the ability to share in another person's feelings to a certain extent. Empathy is not 'cheapened' by being broadly applied. A wide circle of empathy only enriches the one doing the empathizing.”
“Empathy” is generally a synonym for “sympathy” and “compassion.” If that’s what you mean, then I don’t agree with your morally indiscriminate use of the term. If a schoolyard sniper is shooting innocent students, the students are entitled to our “empathy,” but not the sniper.
“I guess I was wrong to try to have a conversation with you.”
When you come here guns a-blazin’ and assume a very confrontational tone, then that’s not a very productive way to open a conversation.
“Your mind is made up on far more issues than mine is, and like a novice teacher you just can't conceive how anyone in their right mind could possibly see things differently.”
Aside from the fact that you’re resorting to caricature, it’s only to be expected that someone twice your age would have his mind made up on far more issues than you.
Moreover, a conversation is not necessarily or even primarily about trying to convince the person you’re talking to. It may simple be a way of testing your arguments against someone who may not agree to see how well they hold up.
"Because you said you share her outlook (“…her disgust (which I happen to share) with Christian hypocrisy and animosity.”)."
ReplyDeleteJust because I happen to share her feelings on one issue doesn't mean I share her entire outlook, or that I feel I need to defend her on every point.
"You certainly act as if you have a stake in defending it."
Currently it seems to be the position on the origin of species with the most empirical support. If it were abandoned tomorrow, with good evidence to overturn it, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.
"“Empathy” is generally a synonym for “sympathy” and “compassion.” If that’s what you mean, then I don’t agree with your morally indiscriminate use of the term."
They are not synonyms, empathy usually means exactly what I said:
"the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/empathy
" the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner; also : the capacity for this"
http://mw1.meriam-webster.com/dictionary/empathy
Empathy does not necessarily connote moral approval or disapproval, but at minimum it presupposes you think the person you are empathizing with is a human being like yourself with reasons for acting as s/he does and a wide range of experiences that have shaped his/her outlook. If you don't have empathy with someone, s/he will always be simply a will set up in opposition to your own, a force to be subdued, a factor to be taken into account but nothing more. If teachers don't have empathy with students, for example, they will treat them as the 'enemy' and classes will be a contest of wills instead of learning opportunities.
Jesus was the empathizer par excellence. We have a great high priest who is not untouched by our infirmities. He is able to make intercession for us, and wants to, because he understands what we go through. He knows our frame, he remembers that we are dust.
JD WALTERS SAID:
ReplyDelete"They are not synonyms, empathy usually means exactly what I said..."
http://thesaurus.com/browse/empathy
From your link:
ReplyDelete"empathy denotes a deep emotional understanding of another's feelings or problems, while sympathy is more general and can apply to small annoyances or setbacks"
There's a definite difference in the two concepts. To sympathize is not only to understand what another person is feeling, but to share those feelings to a certain extent.