[Way Off!] My Take: Why I support Anne Rice but am still a Christian


Tom Usher commented or added the following:

I was invited to join a Facebook Page (to like it): "Wild Goose Festival on Facebook." http://www.facebook.com/wi
ldgoosefestival?v=info

I wanted to know more about it, so I followed the link to http://wildgoosefestival.wordpress.com/ and found Anne Rice's controversy. It even got Brian McLaren into the act. So, I went and read his article too. http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/02/my-take-why-i-support-anne-rice-but-am-still-a-christian/ Wow, is he ever way off.

This is bad. Anne Rice has announced that she is no longer a Christian, saying that she can't be "anti-gay ... anti-feminist ... anti-artificial birth control ... anti-Democrat ... anti-secular humanism ... anti-science ... anti-life" and claiming that Christianity is all of those things, obviously. She also said, "Christ is infinitely more important than Christianity and always will be, no matter what Christianity is, has been or might become."

First of all, Christ is Christianity. Christianity can be nothing contrary to Jesus Christ. It doesn't matter what anyone else says that Christianity is or isn't, if it doesn't jibe with what Jesus said and did, it's not Christian or Christianity or his Church and he doesn't sanction the supposed change.

Now, that said, let me address he specifics. Jesus was not and is not against homosexuals changing by God's healing through Jesus. Jesus is though against homosexuality. If Anne doesn't know that, too bad for her about it. Jesus said exactly what marriage is, and he said it's between a man and a woman. That's just how it is. If Anne doesn't believe in the power of God to change a homosexual into a non-homosexual, how could she possibly believe in the power of God to resurrect the dead or to heal thousands of people on a level that at the time of Jesus was clearly seen as miraculous – way beyond the healing of the flesh that occurs even for the most unbelieving people?

Jesus was not against women. He had women as disciples and very close followers. He didn't take away from women. He didn't treat women as the Pharisees treated them. It's true that the twelve were males. It's true that he spoke of the Father rather than a goddess or goddesses, per se. Those things don't mean that females and mothers aren't his closest family to be treated with all the love he showed to his twelve. He said that Christians end up in the Kingdom together were they will not be married. What will male or female be in that case?

The idea about artificial birth control is about a lack of self-control, of unbridled lust. Self-control is worthy. That's the central focus. What's artificial birth control in that regard?

Democracy is a pain in the neck when people vote for evil. If you want to vote for Jesus, do it. If you want coercive democracy where wicked people band together in a majority to force the more righteous into greater and greater evil, well, that's just plain evil.

Secular humanism is anti-Christ for the reasons I just stated. Jesus was not coercing a soul when he was here. He did one thing to people to explain, as a sign, the consequences of attempting to usurp God. He cleaned the temple of the moneychangers, etc. That was a good thing to do. If they all had listened to him rather than follow (vote) for the Pharisaic Chief Priest, Jerusalem wouldn't have been sacked and leveled by the Romans.

As for science, what do you believe in? Do you believe that unless something is tested and replicated that it must be denied? Test God. Replicate the feeding of the five thousand. Test and replicate the resurrection.

There's Anne writing, "I remain committed to Christ as always...." How so? I don't see any evidence of anything of the kind. I see someone writing her loathing of Jesus.

She actually said that Christianity as I've described it here is "anti-life." Jesus said that he is the life.

Anne Rice wants her cake and to eat it too. She can't have it both ways.

She doesn't just hate Christianity and Christian followers of Jesus Christ. She hates Jesus. There's no doubt about it. She's just made up a Jesus in her head that doesn't exist anywhere else.

As for Brian McLaren, he just takes the term Christianity and defines it as whatever anyone has done in the name of Christianity. That's a terrible thing to do to Jesus. I have defined Christianity above. I've done so correctly. Christianity is eternal, as are God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

I take Brian McLaren as a New Ager. I take the vast majority of what is trying to pass itself off as Christian this way, or even worse, committed to Christ but anti-Christ and his Church, as New Ageism.

New Ageism is anti-Christ. That's extremely clear. It's becoming clearer and clearer too.

There is a stark contrast between what Anne Rice wants and what Jesus said and did. Jesus didn't come in the name of the LORD to preach and demonstrate scientism! He came with faith and the truth that, that "science" is not the end-all-be-all but rather a trap – a closed loop that precludes entering the Kingdom.

Truth!

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.