Mohler Considers Some Anne Lamott

Al Mohler on "Anne Lamott and Her Evangelical Audience."

Comments

[Mike Noakes]

Hmmm... That makes me sad and angry. I'm sure veryone here feels the same way I do about abortion, and I am sure that those feelings aren't unjustified, but her words seem.... wrong. Very, very wrong. I don't think it is something to be blamed on liberalism either, I know many liberals who wish to be know as the peculiar people who don't want to kill their babies or their elderly. It is just a sad situation.

[Matt]

I agree, Mike, but I wonder if Dr. Mohler is addressing a certain segment who of evangelicalism who swoon over her (very good) writing ability and ignore the giant elephant in the room when it comes to her very outspoken political beliefs.

[Scott Lyons]

Anne Lamott is an excellent writer. It is possible for one to appreciate her talent without buying into her politics, which by the way have never been secret.

[Ryan Abernathy]

I like Lamott's writing. I do not like her abortion politics. She does have a good point in the horror of seeing kids raised in awful environments just b/c we believe abortion is wrong. The church is largely silent on the issues of child welfare, foster care, and adoption. Why is that? Where are the pro-life believers in the service of those kids who have horrible homes? Now I know they are out there, but we do an awful job of spotlighting them in our churches and in our denomination. My take is- if we oppose abortion, we are in favor of anything that we as believers can do to serve kids in need.
Abs

[Kevin Bussey]

I waited a couple of hours to let her article sink in. I guess I just don't understand how some of us can think so differently. Ryan is right that we should be more concerned about abuse and adoption. I know many people who can't have children and have been trying to adopt for years. I just don't understand Lamott's acceptance of abortion. I also don't accept the name calling of pro-life groups. I don't know the answer but abortion is not Biblical option in my opinion.

[Kevin Bussey]

By the way Steve, thanks for brining my attention to the article. I was impressed with how Dr. Mohler addressed it.

[Matt Stokes]

Ryan: I agree that Lamott is a good writer, and Mohler said as much in his piece. I think he is right, however, to note that while she is a good confessional essayist, she virulently and unapologetically advocates abortion rights and in general sides with left-wing causes. Is this altogether bad? On everything other than abortion, perhaps not. But it should be noted that while she appears to be sound on theological orthodoxy, she places herself outside the bounds of ethical orthodoxy. I would refer you the last paragraph of Mohler's essay. I enjoy her writing, but that last part is where I agree with Dr. Mohler. To ignore these things would be negligent to some degree.

[Van Edwards]

I've only read "Bird by Bird" by Lamott. Being aware that she calls herself "Christian, I've been a little put off by her lack of reverence in some areas. What she advocated at this roundtable does not necessarily come as a shock to me.

But I've always thought that a more "orthodox" alternative to Lamott is Andree Seu who writes frequent editorials for WORLD magazine. Strangely enough, Seu wrote on Lamott a few years ago. She's very gracious about Ms. Lamott, maybe overly gracious judging by current events.
This is an unpublished article found on WorldMagBlog:
LINK

[Scott Lyons]

I'm missing something, obviously. Are evangelicals not allowed to enjoy someone who has a different worldview than they? Or is there some danger that we will be infected with those views?

Or is it more about determining how exactly to judge the woman? Determining if she is a real believer?

Because that's the vibe I'm getting, and I ain't liking either option.

Can someone help me out here?

[Matthew Stokes]

I think Scott's question hits upon a point of contention as it concerns confessional writing. Nothing suggest that Lamott isn't a real Christian. I never understood that to be Mohler's point. However, if she is given a platform by evangelicals supporting her work, and that platform is used to endorse a strong pro-choice stance, then people at least need to be aware of it. I'm not saying boycott the work or anything of that nature. But we should know what we're getting ourselves into.

Everyone knows what Piper is about. Everyone knows about Adrian Rogers was about when he wrote and spoke. Everyone knows about Eugene Peterson. I can appreciate Lamott's writing, but when she admits openly and proudly that she is a leftist, it should raise a flag if nothing else, for she is pledging fidelity to a political ideology with no roots in orthodox Christianity. Her readers should at least be aware that, right or wrong, she is out of the mainstream of traditional Christianity.

[Scott Lyons]

Thank you, Matthew. I was under the impression that the entire world already knew Ms. Lamott's excessively vocal position on abortion and on the Right, in general. (Certainly those familiar with her work know.) Perhaps that is why I'm misunderstanding the discussion and the Mohler article.

[Ryan Abernathy]

Real quick-
1. I don't think we have to agree with all Lamont writes to classify her as a believer- I don't agree with everything Piper writes and I think he is a believer
2. No political ideology has "roots in orthodox Christianity" and anyone who thinks so needs to read more Bible and less political commentary. Politicians may borrow from the Bible when it is convenient but no political party has a lock hold on perfect theology.
Abs

[Matthew]

Scott: Just on my own anecdotal evidence...it's a mixed bag. Some know, others don't. There are a lot of folks who will pick up a book at Barnes and Noble without being aware of an author's other work online or in print.

Ryan: I agree on point two. Sort of. Christians have certainly been more involved with some ideologies than they have with others.

[Scott Lyons]

Sorry for harping, but I do like the lady.

To some degree I can appreciate people making others aware of a "famous evangelical's" views on abortion and the like. However, and take this in the most respectful way possible - I mean no disrespect to anyone - we are discussing this as if Christians are such idiots that they might actually read a book by a writer who talks about a relationship with Jesus, and because she does so, accept her views on abortion.

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

I mean, for Pete's sake, I've been more corrupted by Steve's music list than by Anne's writing. (He he he.)

I think both of Ryan's points are valid - and if either point is a concern that causes us to flag Ms. Lamott than we're doing others and ourselves a disservice.

[Steve McCoy]

I think Mohler's point is that Lamott needs to be read with some discernment, or maybe to not read her at all (though he didn't say that). I think that Mohler is afraid that people aren't being warned of her "moral" positions. But it's not just her position that's a problem with me, but how she holds it. I'm much more concerned with that.

I think Lamott is worth reading, and as Mohler said, "She is a very talented writer and she sees things in life that others miss."

[Kevin Bussey]

Scott,

I don't think anyone is saying Lamott is not a believer. I think she is. I just disagree with her view on abortion. I'm sure I'm wrong in a lot of areas and am working on them.

I wish she would focus on adoption. My mother teaches a Bible study for Women of Rama that reaches out to women whose lives have been shattered because of abortion. I think we can do better than abortion.

[Russ]

I think as Christians we have to be willing to accept that some Christians will nver be like us. We say that we are inclusive. We say that we love people just like they are, that is until they have time to become like us. That is not the way it works.

[Ryan Abernathy]

Kevin-
agreed on we can do better than abortion and what you mom is doing is awesome.
as an adopted kid i wish my mom had been able to be a part of something like that
abs

[Scott Lyons]

At the risk of beating a dead horse, I'm posting again.

I agree that Anne Lamott's views on abortion and the hostility that accompanies those views are very wrong. I find her activism in this area extremely troubling. That, however, is not really my point. I'm concerned about what Mohler's point is. Mohler says that she's known for her views "and yet has a readership among many evangelicals. They may well be shocked to read her recent op-ed piece . . ." (My emphasis.)

Her readership would not be shocked at what she said at this particular conference on "Politics and Spirituality," if my response is any indication. If you've read her work, you know that this is precisely how she would react.

I realize I'm being ornery. But if her evangelical readership understands her views on abortion, and they do, what is Mohler's point? You don't need discernment to understand her views are wrong - it's as plain as the nose on Cyrano de Bergerac's face. So I'm left with Mohler saying that either I'm that much of an idiot/sucker that her lovely writing would so soften my opinion toward her dreadful beliefs or he's unsure of her faith. Maybe both.

Now, it strikes me that he may also be writing this response as someone who has not read any of Anne's work, but has only heard about it in a positive light from other believers. If this is the case, than I understand why he may issue his cautionary words - though they are unnecessary for those who read and enjoy her writing.

[Matthew Stokes]

Scott: I can appreciate being ornery. That's how I roll, too.

I agree with Steve's post above about Mohler's call for discernment. I would wager that Dr. Mohler is also concerned that many evangelicals know about Anne's politics and just don't care. That likely troubles him and, frankly, it troubles me, too.

[Matthew Stokes]

I fleshed out my concerns about Lamott's politics about my blog. See here.

[mike bush]

I just dropped in on this discussion about a women who is religious and who has a consistent view on abortion. I can't help but notice that up till now all the comments are by men. Whats that about?
Also would like to say about right and left, that when I was younger the effort in this country was about social justice. That effort was often led by people of the cloth.

[Van Edwards]

Hey, if James Montgomery Boice can enjoy and appreciate Ernest Hemingway, then what's wrong with reading, appreciating and gleaning from Anne Lamott?

[Marty Duren]

Steve-
Congrats on getting mentioned at the end of Mohler's post. Good job!

[marc]

I liked Anne Lamott better when she sang with the Eurythmics.

[Amy]

I'm not familiar with her work, but in my lifetime I've morphed from an absolute right-to-life stance to "abortion should be safe, legal, and extremely rare."

[Joe Kennedy]

Yeah, marc, I like Annie Lennox too.

[Matthew Stokes]

Hey Joe - Apparently we have some mutual friends from the University of Mobile. You should e-mail me.

[Joe Papp]

Personal observation: (Very fitting for
Ms. Lamott!) Women who have had an abortion
almost universally have an "uncontrolled"
rage problem.

In point of fact, the rage is only increased
if, after an initial abortion, there is a
birth of a live child.

And, alas, such children have to live with the death of their (brother/sister) for all of their lives.

Sad, very sad.

ADOPTION not ABORTION! The problem is, it takes REAL guts to go to term.

[Brad R]

Joe Papp,
I'm no fan of abortion, but I don't see how throwing around unsupported generalizations about people is helpful in any way. I worry that the only thing that statements like that accomplish is to support the generalization that us pro-life christian types 'almost universally have an "uncontrolled" ignorance problem'. That's not going to save any babies.
brad

[Marla]

Funny, I just posted a mini review of Blue Like Jazz where I mentioned LaMott since I've read Traveling Mercies, her spiritual autobiography. She happens to live in my county, which is uber liberal, so in addition to her views on abortion, it's not surprise that she also support same sex marriage and even "married" two men to each other, so for whoever said, she's politically off but theologically on, think again. Also, my masters thesis for journalism school at Cal was on liberal pro-lifers, especially Feminists for Life. It's here:

http://www.marlaswoffer.com/blog/2003/07/liberal_prolife.html

[Marla]

sorry for all the typos--I should be in bed!