Anne Rice doesn't get all the hubbub. At least that was the reaction the best-selling author expressed on her Facebook page, a few short days after her July 28 announcement that she was walking away from organized Christianity. She wrote on that day that she "remains committed to Christ", but was unable to find a place of belonging amidst what she considers a "quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group."
  Almost as interesting as her justifications are the responses to them. The small number I've sampled thus far try to offer some level of support and understanding for her, but the majority ultimately end up either subtly expressing minor amounts of huffiness over the fact that she left "us", or speculating that she was never really saved to begin with. While I have issues with both sides of the matter (I'll delve into those more in a bit), for me those kinds of attitudes give a small amount of credence to the conviction at which Rice has arrived.
  The I Am Second website has a great video it posted a few months ago featuring Rice and her testimony. It's the remarkable witness of "a Christ-haunted athiest" flowing languidly into a truth she could no longer run from:



  I'm not very familiar with Rice's work and haven't read any of it (that I remember), but this video introduced her to me in a way that made me love her. Her announcement has not changed this sentiment. I believe the woman who testifies so eloquently and so transparently is still there, that the totality of her surrender to the cross, and to its Conquerer, remains intact. More than her oft-quoted "official" statement, something she said in a recent interview with Joy Behar interested me:

The appropriate thing for me to do right now is step away altogether. I'm not leaving just the Catholic church; I want to leave the entire fray, the entire quarrel, the entire public face of Christianity as it is right now. I can't be committed to Christ and remain in this group...I have to step away, I have to sort of 'go into the wilderness'.

This is what Rice considers to be the "public face" of the Christian community:

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.

  As longtime readers of Perplexed know, I am far from wearing rose-colored glasses when it comes to the body of Christ, and don't deny that it contains some of the fractured, quarrelsome elements that she describes. Having said that, I do feel the need to address some of her criticisms.
  It's not surprising to me that the first one that comes to her mind is "anti-gay"; it's undoubtedly a subject close to her heart, since her son (also an author) is himself gay. While I don't doubt she was wrongly subjected to some aggressive rebuke concerning this fact by some believers, I feel it must be stressed that such a reaction is not a universally shared philosophy of Christendom.
  I grew up in a Christian home and accepted Jesus as my Savior, God and King at eight years of age. I have been around the things and people of God my whole life, and I can assure Anne Rice and everyone reading this, that the vast majority of us think more like Billy Graham than Fred Phelps! While no Christian should ignore the clear word of God that identifies homosexuality as sin, any discerning believer also knows that that fact should not be construed as a license by God to hate those involved in it! The only true "anti" in a genuine believer's heart is anti-sin...in our own lives first and foremost, but also in the lives of others that it affects.
  I find her "anti-secular humanism" issue to be a little puzzling also, because biblical values share its respect of reason, justice, ethics and morality. The most crucial difference is in the idea that God is the most vital component in perfecting these principles, and he does so in a sober and unbiased manner (Acts 10:9-47). Ironically, part of Rice's journey back to faith in many ways seemed to involve an acceptance of this! The Bereans also valued independent thinking, and demonstrated as much in their response to the apostle Paul and his messages to them (Acts 17:11).
  As for the "anti-science" label Rice hands down, I'm guessing that has to do with most Christians rejecting the theory of evolution. So, because of this, all Christians hate anything to do with science? I have little doubt that such folks as William Turner (Reformation preacher and the "father of English botany"), Laurentius Gothus (Archbishop of Uppsala and astronomy professor), and Hermann of Reichenau (11th century monk and mathematician) would disagree with her. Of course there is a bountiful population of scientific thinkers throughout the span of Christian history beyond these examples, if one is willing to open their mind and explore it. There's even a UK-based website that dedicates itself to the relationship of Christians and science.
  Also, there are plenty of registered Democrats in the Christian community, including the aforementioned Billy Graham. He may not resemble the hard left-leaning variety of today's Democrat party, but he did fight for many of the social policies back in the 60's that Rice champions today. In any event, this is just another broad-brush assumption. The endless combinations of political views is just as present in the church as in the rest of society.
  If there is an "anti" in this case, it involves many of the things the party has come to align itself with in recent decades that fly in the face of scripture, or distort it toward self-serving ends. And no, the Republican party is not immune to this either. Adherence to biblical truth must always supersede partisan concerns for the Christian, wherever the two conflict. Jesus didn't do what he did to satisfy anyone's ideological agenda, but to seek and save those who are lost.
  In the end, it would appear that Rice's decision was motivated to a much lesser extent by the Spirit of God than by the politically liberal views she holds. I don't begrudge her this; I am just saddened that she presents the body of Christ as a hostile antithesis. "In the name of Christ" is not some magical talisman that provides cover for every decision we make. I don't believe this was Rice's intent in using the phrase, I'm just a believer in being very judicious as to what actions and decisions we put the "Jesus stamp of approval" on.
  I say none of this out of persuasion for her return...far from it. It will not concern me if she never darkens a church doorway again; the most important thing is that she stays close to God and maintains seeking his face through the consistent fellowship of prayer and spending time in his Word. She did say in the article I linked to above that she could not return to an athiest's point of view. Hopefully, she will also maintain fellowship with Christians she has come to befriend and trust (Heb. 10:24-25), even if she won't be sitting in a pew with them anymore.
  There is always a benefit in reducing one's faith to the barest of essentials; in this case, that is Christ alone. I have long believed in the priority of proclaiming Jesus over the promotion of the imperfect institution that bears his name. The people that are addressing this in the context of Anne Rice need to acquaint themselves with the idea that leaving the latter doesn't automatically constitute leaving the former. I wish Anne Rice, my spiritual sister, Godspeed in her quest for truthful simplicity.