# Anne Rice quits "Christianity"...again



## Grillsy (Jul 30, 2010)

This has been all over the news for some reason.
If you remember, Anne Rice famously went back to the Catholic church and began writing novels about Jesus. 
Apparently she has renounced her "faith" again. Her reasonings are explained in the article. 

Anne Rice says no more to Christianity (and no new vampires) - CSMonitor.com

What do you make of this? Do we not see some of the same excuses and attitudes in Evangelicalism?


----------



## jjraby (Jul 30, 2010)

To me it seems she would rather be politically correct than religious. But it seems she is leaving the catholic church over political stances. The article doesn't say she has rejected the teachings of Christ. Who knows...


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jul 30, 2010)

I remember when Michael Horton interviewed her on the White Horse Inn. I was yelling at my podcast trying to get Dr. Horton to press her on her answers. They were seriously weak and it was pretty obvious even then this was going to be the end result of her "discovery".


----------



## Grillsy (Jul 30, 2010)

Joshua said:


> If all I knew of "Christianity" was Roman Catholicism, I'd quickly jettison it as well.


 
By the Grace of God of course!


----------



## jjraby (Jul 30, 2010)

Joshua said:


> If all I knew of "Christianity" was Roman Catholicism, I'd quickly jettison it as well.


 
Good point!


----------



## Grillsy (Jul 30, 2010)

I didn't realize she was interviewed by Horton.


----------



## Marrow Man (Jul 30, 2010)

A link to the Horton interview would be great.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jul 30, 2010)

I'm not sure archives go back that far but I will look.

Edit: The Audio does not seem available but you can find info here.

http://www.whitehorseinn.org/broadcast-archive/whi-program-resources-from-2007.html#0708


----------



## Emmanuel (Jul 30, 2010)

"Rice said she is a Democrat who supports the historic health care legislation signed into law by President Barack Obama and believes gay marriage inevitably will be permitted throughout the country."

So, she loves Obama more than God?


----------



## AThornquist (Jul 30, 2010)

Wasn't she also interviewed by Focus on the Family? I heard that interview quite a while ago and was quite unimpressed that the host (Dobson) was so quick to believe whatever Rice said about her path.


----------



## SemperEruditio (Jul 30, 2010)

Emmanuel said:


> "Rice said she is a Democrat who supports the historic health care legislation signed into law by President Barack Obama and believes gay marriage inevitably will be permitted throughout the country."
> 
> So, she loves Obama more than God?


 
Obama is a god...didn't you know?


----------



## R Harris (Jul 30, 2010)

How is Rice different than the typical antinomian believer?

She wants the "love" of Christ, but not the Christ of Matthew 7:23, nor the Christ who gave the solemn warnings and admonitions in Revelation chapters 2 and 3 to the erring members of those churches.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jul 30, 2010)

Let's here her own words:

"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," the author wrote Wednesday on her Facebook page. "In the name of ... Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen."



Fine. Good riddance. As the Sovereign King says through his angel in Revelation 22:11, "Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy..."


----------



## Curt (Jul 30, 2010)

How can one quit something they never were?


----------



## Peairtach (Jul 30, 2010)

Is she a rice Christian? 

"Whose God is their belly.....etc"


----------



## Andres (Jul 30, 2010)

SolaScriptura said:


> Let's here her own words:
> 
> "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," the author wrote Wednesday on her Facebook page. "In the name of ... Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen."
> 
> ...


 
I really wanted this to be my attitude when I read the opening post. I rolled my eyes and basically echoed your same sentiments. However, I just can't bring myself to be hold this attitude when I truly consider the ramifications of a person rejecting Christ. My heart truly goes out to Ms. Rice to think she will spend eternity separated from God. Then my heart is overwhelmed because I think how if it were not for the grace of God, I would be in Ms Rice's same position. I think we should pray for God to be glorified in Ms. Rice's life. Whether He chooses to glorify Himself through her salvation or through her damnation, whatsoever He decrees will be right.


----------



## jandrusk (Jul 30, 2010)

Christianity != Roman Catholicism


----------



## Andres (Jul 30, 2010)

jandrusk said:


> Christianity != Roman Catholicism


 
are you saying Christianity equals Roman Catholicism or excited Christianity equals RC? Either way, no, it most certainly does not.


----------



## he beholds (Jul 30, 2010)

Put no confidence in princes, nor for help on man depend...

Anytime a celebrity, who claims to be a Christian, falls away, my husband says that he hopes this will finally make American Christians stop wanting celebrities to endorse our faith. I'm not saying any of you do this, but I do! All the time. I think, "Oh, if Hitchens would come to faith! Or if Oprah would! Then many would!" But God came as a baby and lived as a man and died on a cross! Ours is a faith of quiet humility.


----------



## Casey (Jul 30, 2010)

Andres said:


> jandrusk said:
> 
> 
> > Christianity != Roman Catholicism
> ...


In computer programming, bang (or exclamation mark) commonly means NOT. So != means NOT EQUAL TO.


----------



## Montanablue (Jul 30, 2010)

Everytime I read something like this, I think "but for the grace of God, that's me." Sobering.


----------



## Andres (Jul 30, 2010)

Casey said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> > jandrusk said:
> ...


 
oh...I'm ! a computer programmer so my bad.


----------



## he beholds (Jul 30, 2010)

Montanablue said:


> Everytime I read something like this, I think "but for the grace of God, that's me." Sobering.


 
I admit that that's rarely my first thought  Thanks for the reminder. (I can admit this b/c I know you won't judge me. You'll read my confession and think "but for the grace of God, that's me." : ))

But truly, I hardly ever think about how my genuinely knowing Christ in a way that I cannot just quit is an act of his mercy. Thanks, Kathleen♥


----------



## Montanablue (Jul 30, 2010)

Okay, not every time! But its what I thought this time.


----------



## he beholds (Jul 31, 2010)

Montanablue said:


> Okay, not every time! But its what I thought this time.


 
Girl, I definitely was not saying that you don't!!!! I think you probably do think that when you hear stuff like this--the way you always post backs that up. I was only saying I need to!!


----------



## raekwon (Jul 31, 2010)

Anne Rice Hasn't Betrayed You - Moore to the Point by Russell D. Moore

Read that. It's helpful.


----------



## christiana (Jul 31, 2010)

Sounds like she determines the how and what she will believe and is not submitting to the truth of scripture! How can she say she loves Jesus but not Christianity, that she is not anti gay and such when God says otherwise! Same ole song and dance where man wants to be the one who determines what is right! Yes, she does need prayer, as all the lost and disobedient do!!


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Jul 31, 2010)

Who is Ann Rice?


----------



## christiana (Jul 31, 2010)

Anne Rice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Grimmson (Jul 31, 2010)

I cannot say Anne Rice was ever a Christian, but there maybe more at play that meets the eye. If you think about it she has not been a supposed Christian for that long. We do not know what brought her to this position, whether it was political or religious. Sometimes Christians use hate speech, thinking they are trying to call the world to repentance, but instead of showing the love of God through the Gospel they drive people away with the God’s Law. An example of this comes into mind with groups of evangelists use to come to my undergraduate school with signs that said “God hates” _________. I am sure you can fill in the blanks yourself, but if you cannot the list would include homosexuals; however they would not use the term homosexuals. 

With that said I can understand why someone can say that they love Christ and not Christianity because they see love in Christ and hate in Christians due to their speech and political policies. Now am saying what the world or a new believer may see. The world sees the church has being hypocrites, driven for the desire of money and power. To some degree no different then themselves with the exception that they are honest by their desire and do not hide it in the name of Godliness. Preaching of God’s Word must be done in love and we should with passion communicate what it means for God to love us and how we are to love God as King through the Gospel. This does not mean we should be antinomian, but instead be patient in communicating the truth of the Gospel. The same patient that God exercises with us. The church has not been doing a good job communicating the Gospel in love. What is communicated either a water downed love or authoritative law, in some sense no difference in relation with expectation to Sharia Law ( I know it is Islamic) in establishing Christian nations. In the case of Anne Rice I think it would be valuable for a churchman to discuss the anti-gay, anti-feminist, and anti-artificial birth control positions to reconstruct a Christian mindview. Which means she needs to be placed under a church’s care and prayed over. She is not placed under our care, therefore we must be careful not to condemn her outright, especially since we lack knowledge in regards to her situation. To condemn her based on her comments alone without the background of her situation actually in her mind and in many others reinforces the hatred of Christians towards her personally and towards the world all in the name of hatred of evil. 

Therefore I suggest that people show love towards her by praying to God for her salvation, instead of making comments like “good riddance”. Pray that God reveals to her by his Word the truth of Christ and the Gospel through the Holy Spirit; for faith and repentance. Let us not repay evil with evil, but show the love of God in boldness and in our prayers.


----------



## Montanablue (Jul 31, 2010)

he beholds said:


> Montanablue said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, not every time! But its what I thought this time.
> ...


 
No worries  I was just thinking about it more and reminded of something I said this week about an unbeliever that... did not really involve the grace of God.


----------



## ZackF (Jul 31, 2010)

You would think people would stop pouncing on celebrity conversions to "Christianity."


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jul 31, 2010)

raekwon said:


> Anne Rice Hasn't Betrayed You - Moore to the Point by Russell D. Moore
> 
> Read that. It's helpful.


 
Ok, here is where I'm going to sound like an unspiritual fascist.

These kinds of things, like the article by Moore, the "just love her" line, really grow old with me. 

Christianity is not "just" a message of how to not go to hell. Christianity is a worldview with attendant ethics. By her article, she makes clear that she's rejecting the moral norms and standards of Christianity while still thinking she can claim to believe in Christ. 

I have a culture that is founded on Christianity - it's worldview and moral standards - and to the extent that her rejection of Christianity is a rejection of that "system," then she's part of the problem of the continued undermining of my culture. Some of you perhaps couldn't care less what our culture looks like - all that may matter in your mind is that churches properly worship - but I DO care about my culture and I'm sick and tired of Christians refusing to take the bull by the horns. 

So she wants to be "unChristian." She's saying - by the examples she uses - that she wants to be a leftist. So I say, good riddance. I don't need her, the church doesn't need her, and my culture doesn't need her.


----------



## Austin (Jul 31, 2010)

For what it's worth, I served a church for several years in Southeast Louisiana (SELA) in the New Orleans area (NOLA). Having interacted with some of the local Catholic priests, etc, I can vouch that there is actually quite a significant Evangelical (evangelical?), or at least Gospel-believing stream of thought within the Romanists of SELA & NOLA. This is actually true of a lot of Romanists in the Deep South. Of course, they aren't down with Reformation essentials, but they are Nicene & many are Augustinian in orientation. If I may be so bold, I would say that many of the RCs I knew in the South were much more in line with my line of thinking as a "Westminsterian Catholic" than a great many of the (easy believism, Arminian, culturally Christian) Baptists, non-UPC Pentecostals, and pop-"Evangelicals" I came across. 

As Miss Rice is a native New Orleanian, it is entirely possible that she encountered one of the more "healthy" streams of Romanism there. But, as has been noted above, with so much of what passes for "Christian" in America (Westborough Baptist in Wichita, God-&-Country 'bitter-clingers,' etc), who can fault a new believer (if such she is) with being disgusted? 

As a friend of mine likes to observe: "The Church is a whore... But she's your mother & Christ's Bride, so you better be careful how you talk about her." Well said, in my mind.


----------



## Andres (Jul 31, 2010)

Austin said:


> As Miss Rice is a native New Orleanian, it is entirely possible that she encountered one of the more "healthy" streams of Romanism there. But, as has been noted above, with so much of what passes for "Christian" in America (Westborough Baptist in Wichita, God-&-Country 'bitter-clingers,' etc), *who can fault a new believer (if such she is) with being disgusted?*



God can and He will on judgment day. If anyone thinks they can reject the gospel and stand before God in their own righteousness, but say to him, "well I saw some Christians that were hypocrites" and He will just say, "oh okay all is forgiven", then they are sadly mistaken.


----------



## Austin (Jul 31, 2010)

Don't hear what I'm not saying. There's a difference between being disgusted with Christians or the Church on the one hand & turning one's back on Christ on the other. After almost a 3rd of my life in ministry, I can say that I get disgusted with Christians & the Church regularly. But when we rightly understand the Gospel, isn't that kind of the point? The Church IS a whore. But as I noted, she's also my mother & Christ's Bride, so with Hosea I will love her. As I also like to point out, the Church is a hospital for sinners. You go to the hospital, what do you expect to find? Sick people. Sick people who are (hopefully) getting well. You go to Church, what should you expect to find? Sick, broken, disgusting sinners who are stumbling toward the road of love for Christ & consequent practical holiness. But in contrast with the hospital, in the Church the other patients are your doctors & nurses... and you are theirs.


----------



## au5t1n (Jul 31, 2010)

Austin said:


> Don't hear what I'm not saying. There's a difference between being disgusted with Christians or the Church on the one hand & turning one's back on Christ on the other. After almost a 3rd of my life in ministry, I can say that I get disgusted with Christians & the Church regularly. But when we rightly understand the Gospel, isn't that kind of the point? The Church IS a whore. But as I noted, she's also my mother & Christ's Bride, so with Hosea I will love her. As I also like to point out, the Church is a hospital for sinners. You go to the hospital, what do you expect to find? Sick people. Sick people who are (hopefully) getting well. You go to Church, what should you expect to find? Sick, broken, disgusting sinners who are stumbling toward the road of love for Christ & consequent practical holiness. But in contrast with the hospital, in the Church the other patients are your doctors & nurses... and you are theirs.


 
The analogy breaks down when the person in question is disgusted with the Church for agreeing with God about social issues, not because the Church imperfectly obeys God.


----------



## Austin (Jul 31, 2010)

Yes... but we have to bear in mind that a lot of what people don't like about Christ has a lot more to do with the nasty, judgmental, thoughtless, harsh, mercurial, hypocritical way that so many of us have of communicating the beauty of Christ. Also, a lot of the misconceptions related to Scripture have more to do with the fact that often we argue with unbelievers or preach to people in our churches on a fruit level rather than on a root level. For instance, if I berate the wickedness of the culture in some fashion (let's say in regard to women being in submission or homosexuality), but I do so by preaching against radical feminism or the San Francisco bathhouse depravity, rather than by drawing people back to the first principles of the Gospel, then all I am doing is critiquing the fruit rather than ministering to the root. What we SHOULD be doing is talking about the Good News of the Covenant and then drawing out of that the consequences of that blessed news for various spheres of life (e.g. Keller's style). Instead, we rant and rave about things that are at a fruit level that really are abominations. But being John the Baptist in our relationship with sin & the culture is guaranteed to polarize. Much better in my estimation to be Paul at the Areopagus, showing people through a winsome approach to Biblical anthropology how the Covenant and the Redemption of Christ heals the heart issues that motivate them to do the things that the gentiles do by nature.


----------



## Andres (Jul 31, 2010)

Austin said:


> Don't hear what I'm not saying. There's a difference between being disgusted with Christians or the Church on the one hand & turning one's back on Christ on the other. After almost a 3rd of my life in ministry, I can say that I get disgusted with Christians & the Church regularly. But when we rightly understand the Gospel, isn't that kind of the point? The Church IS a whore. But as I noted, she's also my mother & Christ's Bride, so with Hosea I will love her. As I also like to point out, the Church is a hospital for sinners. You go to the hospital, what do you expect to find? Sick people. Sick people who are (hopefully) getting well. You go to Church, what should you expect to find? Sick, broken, disgusting sinners who are stumbling toward the road of love for Christ & consequent practical holiness. But in contrast with the hospital, in the Church the other patients are your doctors & nurses... and you are theirs.


 
I agree with the church as a hospital analogy. It makes sense to me view the church this way. What gets old to me more than seeing and knowing sinners make up the church is people (Christians and non-Christians) complaining about how they are disgusted with Christians and/or the church. This attitude always comes across as haughty to me. I hate when unbelievers use the lame "Christians are hypocrites" excuse for not having faith. They're trying to weasel out of their sin and make it my fault they hate God. All I was saying in my previous post was this is a lame excuse and I am not going to let them by on it and I am certain God won't either.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 1, 2010)

Hello Austin! And welcome to PB. You said:



> As a friend of mine likes to observe: "The Church is a whore... But she's your mother & Christ's Bride, so you better be careful how you talk about her." Well said, in my mind.



I really must take exception to this! But I aim to do it graciously, and winsomely.

Perhaps this is just a question of semantics and ecclesiological nuances; nonetheless, what you say – by approving your friend’s saying – is just not true. Okay, the _false_ church, the _apostatizing_ church – as the Jewish nation had also become in rejecting their Messiah and God – is indeed part of harlot Babylon, as John averred in Rev 11:8. And “the mother of us all”, that “Jerusalem which is above” (Gal 4:26), is “holy and beloved” (Col 3:12).

There is that which calls itself a “church” but is indeed a whore, but it is not the church I am a member of, nor may it rightly call itself the church of God, the bride of Christ and the “mother of us all”.

The true church of God is comprised of all the faithful, blood-cleansed saints from whatsoever denominations they come. They are not yet perfected – simul iustus et peccator – but still are washed in the blood and justified, and Christ is not ashamed to call them brethren. These are not part of the whore.

Even in strict Baptist churches which strive for a regenerate membership there will likely be tares in the midst, members of the harlot’s body. Hypocrites hidden in her midst does not make her whorish.

So please, don’t go calling what the Lord has pronounced “holy and beloved” a whore!

Any congregation of Christ’s people which preaches the true gospel, administers the sacraments according to the ordinance of Christ, and exercises godly church discipline, is His bride, and is the antithesis of the harlot.

As for Anne Rice, her story’s not over yet. It doesn’t look hopeful, but then many of us looked as bad once upon a time.


----------



## Austin (Aug 1, 2010)

Well said, Steve. I agree. But as you note the old phrase simul iustus et peccator, let me make myself clear. Inasmuch as the Church as a whole is righteous (iustus/just/dikaios), she is already what she will be-- namely the spotless Bride of the Lamb. But in the sense that we are all (whether true or false believers, elect or reprobate) still on the "not yet" side of the eschaton we are also sinners (peccators). And as we are sinners, still on this side of the Resurrection, we still whore after the ba'als as Hosea described both his wife and, typologically, the Church. The promise of Hosea is not yet full. That is, we still have the names of the ba'als in our mouths; we still struggle with calling the Lord 'my husband" rather than "my master." Whenever we succumb to temptation-- either through acts of commission or omission-- we are returning to our lovers. By definition, then, we are whoring after lovers who promise to bless us more than our Beloved will. And when Christians do this (as we all do, both individually & corporately) we are belying our professions of faithfulness and implicitly denying Christ. 

It is this problem that my friend was describing when he note that the Church is a whore. But-- and let me be clear-- we must ALWAYS bear in mind that as the elect of God, the recipients of His sacramental tokens of the Covenant, and as those who continue in confessing our sins & returning to Christ, we are also not merely peccatori, but iusti. We are not merely sinners in rebellion, but those who, through the active & passive obedience of Christ, are seen by the Father in the light of the Son. We are holy, in other words. Nothing can change the fact that, no matter how greatly our sanctification proceeds, this side of Glory we are broken, sinful, rebellious harlots. But at the same time we are the Righteous of the Lord. Nothing can change the fact that, no matter how wretched we are, this side of Glory we are what we will be: spotless, holy, & undefiled. Simul iustus et peccator. To use Augustine's four-fold state of man, we are posse peccare, posse non peccare, non posse mori. Though we may sin or not sin in this present life, we will not ultimately die. 

And as such, we are members of the Bride of Christ. We shall not die "but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet." 

Thus, in this present interval, we are both whores and pure, sinners and righteous. It should give us great humility, but also great hope; great sorrow, but also great joy. "Nothing can separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord"-- not even our sin. Christ is greater than our sin, and He will bring us through. Though our hearts should condemn us, yet God is greater than our hearts, and knows all things. What does He know? he knows that we are covered in the blood of the Lamb. 

And so, in sum, we must always bear in mind that the Church IS a whore. It is foolish to defend ourselves, for all that we do is almost always tainted in some way by our remaining narcissism and sin. The Body as a whole sins in thought, word, and deed. She is a whore. But let no one speak against her, for she is the Beloved of the Lamb, and is protected by her lover, the King of Israel, the Alpha & the omega, the First and the Last. She is His bride, and she is our mother. Though a wretched bride now, a whoring adulteress, yet her Lord loves her fiercely and will not allow any to treat her (us) as she (we) deserve in our own lights. He will visit the iniquity of her enemies upon them. So let none say that His beloved is common. 

I hope this clarifies what I'm saying. We must never be afraid to describe ourselves as Scripture does, no matter how it makes us cringe. But of coruse, the concomitant is true, namely that the worse the Bad News, the better the Good. The Gospel is only good in the same measure as the Bad News is bad. 

Shalom shabbat, y'all.


----------



## Theoretical (Aug 1, 2010)

SolaScriptura said:


> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> > Anne Rice Hasn't Betrayed You - Moore to the Point by Russell D. Moore
> ...


 
While my irenic tendencies at first recoiled at your post, I think you have a good point about someone like this who's trying to sit on both sides of the fence and do so publicly. Folks like her are a much bigger threat than the open non-Christians or other religious followers, simply because they're trying to stay within Christ's fold while pushing and bursting Scriptural boundaries to do it. She definitely needs the Gospel and should be prayed for in that regard, but as far claiming to be in Christ's fold, as far as we can see, she's not by her own admission.

Also I do think Dr. Moore's article is off-base when it comes to the Sons of Thunder wanting to call judgment down on the Samaritan village. These were outsiders who made absolutely no claim to be following Christ. Rice is claiming to follow Christ while rejecting His teachings. That's a huge difference. 

I'm reminded a bit of a section in Machen's _What is Faith _where he spoke well of a Unitarian minister who openly rejected the proper reading of a Scriptural text, because he was being honest, in direct distinction to liberals who did the exact same thing while claiming to still be within the fold. In this anti-institutional age, the analogous one is Rice's juvenile "In the name of Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian." If you don't want to follow Him, reject Him openly. At least then you're being honest.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 1, 2010)

Hello again, Austin; here I extract a few sayings from your last post:




> “. . . as we are sinners, still on this side of the Resurrection, we still whore after the ba'als”
> 
> “By definition, then, we are whoring after lovers who promise to bless us more than our Beloved will. And when Christians do this (as we all do, both individually & corporately) we are belying our professions of faithfulness and implicitly denying Christ.”
> 
> ...



You mentioned Tim Keller in an above post, and I can hear some of his “the Gospel is, we are more wicked than we ever dared think, and – simultaneously – more loved than we ever dared hope” in your view. My problem, I think, with how you express yourself pertains to the technical designation of “whore” in Scripture, particularly Revelation. There, the Whore is vividly contrasted with the Bride; the former is the devil-following community of the world in opposition to God, the latter the community of God devoted – albeit imperfectly at this time – to Him and to His commandments. This “imperfectly” refers to what is variously called, “remaining corruption,” “indwelling sin”, “the self-centeredness of the old man” etc etc.

That we still possess this “remaining corruption” does not put us in the whore class, that which is sold out to idolatry, and violently oppresses those godly who bring the Gospel to her.

Personally, I do not “whore after the ba’als” just because I am on this side of the Resurrection and still have “indwelling sin”! I do not think that is accurate (I will get to the state of the professing church in a moment). What we are talking about is identifying the state of a true man or woman of God, denominating it. When I am communing with the Lord about those areas where I sin, and seeking His help in mastering them, these areas of sinful failure are not tantamount to “whoring”, which is flagrant and wanton willful lusting born of rebellion and disdain toward God and His holiness. Whoring is activity in a whole other realm than the saint struggling to keep his purity in the presence of his King and Redeemer.

I am talking of my state _now_, after 42 years in the Way, and not decades back when I did not know the way of godliness, nor Reformed doctrine. I take holiness seriously. My background, coming out the 60’s counterculture – the whole 9 yards – and then even after the Lord rescued me, getting stuck in Finneyesque will worship and Wesleyan “perfectionism” and “second blessing – entire sanctification” and falling back into my old ways, all this left me such a ravaged desperado wretch that “the ordinary Christian life” was like, to quote a Johnny Cash prison ballad, “What some folks rely on, I can’t get by on”. It was stay near to the Saviour, consciously in His presence and practicing “universal obedience” to His known will (Al Martin’s phrase), or fall back into a realm of darkness and evil passion, overcome of the devil and the world. To have a “pure heart” (Matt 5:8; Luke 8:15) means simply to have a heart open and honest before Christ – honest about the evil that manifests, and desirous that He subdue or remove it. I _once_ had a whorish heart, but thankfully those days are over (may God will it be so)! I do not use the language that depicts the enemy of the throne of Heaven and the precincts of the Temple to refer to my remaining corruption. It is neither fitting nor accurate.

Now, concerning the state of the modern church, say in America. Insofar as she is enamored of Babylon’s seductive entertainments, technologies, affluence, and cultural wonders, to the point where she has been lured away from staying in the presence of her God, _then_ one might apply some of those quotes of yours I posted a few paragraphs above to her. _Then_ the Bride has been seduced and is herself playing the whore, spiritually fornicating with idols and leaving her Husband. _Then_ your terminology may be used – but please do not use it for the godly but imperfect faithful.

There is much in the American church today that cleaves to harlot Babylon. When professing Israel in olden time played the harlot, fiery affliction befell her, severe chastening, the elect along with the nonelect. The Lord preserves His people, even though the scourging be excruciating. He wakes them up, and opens their ears and hearts to hear His voice, which they had been deaf to through the whore’s intoxicating wine. The Lord is good at waking up His people. But it is a terrible thing to experience. “Nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby” (Heb 12:11).


----------



## Austin (Aug 1, 2010)

Here's some commentary from Carl Trueman on the Reformation 21 blog. Thought y'all might be interested. Shalom. 


The God That Failed (Carl Trueman)

Posted: 01 Aug 2010 05:54 AM PDT
So Anne Rice has quit Christianity, or Roman Catholicism, or whatever. She did it via a Facebook posting, apparently, rather than a book, but it still surely merits the response Edward Said gave to The God That Failed -- no, not the Metallica song (if Said had an opinion on that, I am unaware of it) but the collection of essays published in 1949 by a number of former Marxist intellectuals (Gide, Spender, Koestler and Wright among them) and edited by Labour politician and intellectual, Richard Crossman: `I want to underline the particularly unpleasant aesthetics of conversion and recantation, how for the individual involved the public display of assent and subsequent apostasy produces a kind of narcissism and exhibitionism in the intellectual that has lost touch with people and processes supposedly being served....To read over The God That Failed testimonial is for me a depressing thing. I want to ask: Why as an intellectual did you believe in god anyway? And besides, who gave you the right to imagine that your early belief and later disenchantment were so important?' [emphasis added] (Representations of the Intellectual, 113). I wonder how significant he would see the de-conversion from Roman Catholicism of a popular novelist? And how important he would judge the medium of disclosure? Maybe he would think Facebook quite an appropriate medium for something so -- what's the phrase? -- earth shattering.


----------



## Christopher88 (Aug 1, 2010)

Anne Rice, does not know Christianity, does not know Jesus, for if she did the words coming out of her mouth would not be. She needs prayer because her fate is closing in on the torments of hell. This is a real shame.


----------



## Jared (Aug 1, 2010)

Here's my take on it. From what I can tell, her beliefs have not changed. She has always supported gay marriage and abortion even as a supposed Catholic. She may not have even been all that involved in the Catholic church, I don't know. It seems to me that the only thing that's changing is the label she's using to describe herself. She's going with the post-modern love Christ but not His followers thing. Which is an impossibility, because if you love Christ, how could you hate the bride that He died to purchase? Furthermore, and I just thought of this, how could you hate the Bride of Christ and be part of the Bride of Christ?

All I see is a change in labels, and I don't think she was ever a Christian.


----------



## Berean (Aug 4, 2010)

The United "Church" of Christ (UCC) is now "using" her to promote itself. A very sad situation for all concerned.



> The United Church of Christ is trying to get Anne Rice to join its flock after the Interview with the Vampire author announced her highly-publicized decision to “quit being Christian” this past week.
> 
> Just days after Rice’s announcement, the 1.1-million member UCC launched the "You'd Like the UCC, Anne Rice" campaign on Facebook to offer support for the acclaimed author and to introduce her and others to the historically liberal church body.



UCC Makes Pitch to Ex-'Christian' Author Anne Rice with "You'd Like the UCC, Anne Rice


----------

