Grace (Eventually), by Anne Lamott
Books — By Tyler Charles on August 13, 2007 at 12:00 am
Anne Lamott’s latest work is more of the same. For those who admire Lamott’s writing, this is good news. Grace (Eventually): Thoughts on Faith is further evidence that Lamott is a supreme talent, a writer who can unearth profound truth buried among the mundane.
Having already written two best-selling books on faith (Traveling Mercies: Some Thoughts on Faith and Plan B: Further Thoughts on Faith), Anne Lamott continues to produce new “thoughts” on the same subject. This reviewer wonders, however, if a more accurate subtitle wouldn’t have been “Thoughts on Faith and the Bush Administration,” due to the frequency with which Lamott stains her pages with disdain for President Bush – a disappointment derived not from the content itself, but from its unnecessary (and overwhelmingly frequent) inclusion.
The themes on display are similar to those in previous Lamott titles, but the anecdotes are new. And if Lamott isn’t worth reading for her insight or her sense of humor, then her anecdotes alone are compelling enough to merit the purchase of her latest work. Through these stories she further recounts her experiences as a single mother, struggles with self-esteem and addiction, difficulties raising a son on the verge of independence, and how she copes with sick friends, cancer-fighting friends, and, of course, the White House’s current occupant.
Conservative readers unfamiliar with Lamott might be shocked to discover that she is violently pro-choice, a feminist who refers to God with the feminine pronoun “She,” and a writer who is completely willing to include go***mn, the f-bomb, and “Jesus” in the same sentence. She is not apologetic about her two abortions, nor does she indicate, when talking about the one child she “chose” to have, that extramarital sex is a sin. Lamott is consistently honest about her perceived shortcomings, yet never appears to be broken by her transgressions.
As a champion for social justice and anything pro-environment, Lamott expresses deep concern for the future of our planet. In the barrage of political assertions, Lamott sometimes seems to forget the topic of her own book, burying her faith beneath a personal political agenda. In her writing, she often seems to be more interested in the renewal of this earth than the salvation of her friends’ souls.
Chapter 8 begins with this arresting statement, “The man I killed did not want to die…” This reviewer assumed Lamott was trying to fully ensnare her readers’ attention before admitting she didn’t really kill a man. But that admission never comes. Instead, Lamott reveals the truth about how she truly (and illegally) killed a man – a friend of hers and an atheist. This reviewer found the act less disturbing than her evangelistic inaction, allowing a friend to die knowing he isn’t a Christian.
For those seeking theological enlightenment, this might not be the right book. Then again, maybe it is.
Sure, Lamott writes things that will make many Christians cringe (this reviewer included), such as, “It is a moral necessity that we not be forced to bring children into the world for whom we cannot be responsible and adoring and present. We must not inflict life on children who will be resented; we must not inflict unwanted children on society.” Statements like these make one wonder upon what Bible her beliefs are based (or at least whether or not Lamott is aware of the potentially-loving families who wait on adoption lists).
But Lamott’s writing is poignant and powerful, spiritually alive – an invitation beckoning even those who, like this reviewer, disagree with some of her beliefs to embrace their personal faith. And it may be important to remember that she subtitles her book “Thoughts on Faith.” Not assertions, not truths. Just thoughts.
Lamott pens her thoughts perhaps more clearly than any other current Christian writer. Whether you agree with her thoughts or not, there is no doubt they are hers. There is no doubt they are real. And, often, they are beautiful: ripe with admiration for nature and the God who created it.
Lamott’s Prelude begins with these lines: “There is not much truth being told in the world. There never was. This has proven to be a major disappointment to some of us. When I was a child, I thought grown-ups and teachers knew the truth, because they told me they did.”
Lamott, to her credit, never claims to be sharing the truth. On one occasion, when speaking about abortion rights, she uses the term “my truth,” which is frighteningly relativistic. But other than that, she claims to be sharing her thoughts. Whether or not you agree with these thoughts, they are often funny, sometimes profound, and always glaringly genuine. And definitely worth reading.
24 Comments
Thanks for reviewing this one. I didn’t even know she had a new one out. A very insightful review of this conflicted and very good writer.
I notice no one touched this with a ten foot pole so I will. This review is troubling on so many levels that I have a hard time knowing where to start.
I’ll start with the writings from the book. I want to take issue with the term applied to Ms. Lamott–”Christian writer.” In Galatians 5:16 the scripture say, “So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law. The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft: hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passion and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.” Based on this scripture, I’m not sure Ms. Lamott be called a Christian. Ms. Lamott seems to endorse and embrace sin. From the environmentalism that worships the creation instead of the Creator, to the endorsement of abortion and extramarital sex. What about the moral necessity about not engaging in extra marital sex, then you wouldn’t have unwanted children brought into the world. Her views and writing are so antithetical to what God teaches us in His Word that they are more a false teaching (rank right up there with Oprah Winfrey and Joel Osteen). God’s pretty specific about dealing with false prophets and teachers in the Bible. Matthew 7:15-20 says that by their fruits we will know them. Her views on what it means to follow Christ really bring into question whether or not she really knows what it means.
I also want to comment on how a follow of Christ could recommend that another Christian read this work. I’m all for reading things that challenge my faith (my reasons for reading this web-site for one). However, this seems to cross a line. What happens when a young Christian reads something like that and is led astray, or worse yet a person who is seeking Christ? Tyler himself thankfully “cringes” at some of her quotes and views but would then turn around and recommend reading her work. What I continue to see is people who have no Biblical grounding advocating a false teaching (and dare I say the word-”heresy”)and not realizing it. Tyler says that Lamott never claims to be sharing the truth, but yet he says “a writer who can unearth profound truth buried among the mundane.” So is she making a truth claim or isn’t she? If she’s not, what is she doing espousing views that are completely against what God teaches us in His Word–which is Truth.
i’m pretty sure the only thing a person needs to be called a Christian is to have a relationship with Jesus Christ, so based on that, i don’t see why anne lamott cannot be referred to as a “Christian writer.”
Someone who truly has a relationship with Jesus Christ would not be able to have the following quote used to describe her– “yet never appears to be broken by her transgressions.”
“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”
–Matthew 7:3-5
“If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.”
–John 8:7
i’m pretty sure patrick is not condemning anne lamott. i’m sure he sees her value as a literary voice and would even acknowledge that some of the things she says are, in fact, “edifying to the faith.” i believe the point that he is making is that we as christians should not look to her as a monumental voice when dealing with faith issues.
while owning multiple lamott books and enjoying them, i too have had issues with some things she has said. all i can really say is that we need to be careful with who we allow to have the loudest voices that influence us…
It think it is a tragedy that we have allowed Political policy to govern who is in or out in the Christian sphere. You have no reason to judge her faith nor her heart.
Who said this has anything to do with political policy?
Is Matthew 7:3-5 and John 8:7 the only scripture that the posters on this board are familiar with? There’s a whole lot more to the Bible than these 2 scriptures.
Why do we require that all writers – particularly and especially all Christian writers of non-fiction – write only that which is wholesome and undisturbing? I, for one, am more edified by a single well-crafted memoir that depicts real-life in all of its joy, pain and absurdity than by an entire bookshelf of devotionals and hagiographies.
To say that Lamott endorses sin is unfair, though I would agree that she embraces her identity as a sinner – to her credit. To say that she worships creation instead of the creator is also silly.
And just because Lamott is “unapologetic” (Charles’s word) about her two abortions doesn’t necessarily mean that she “endorses” (Sexton’s word) the practice outright. She doesn’t have to apologize to me, or any of her readers. She needs only to make peace with her God – our God, Patrick.
I agree with Kevin when he says that it is wrong (“a tragedy”) to use a person’s politics as a litmus test, and that we are in position to judge Lamott’s faith or her heart.
I would also say that books like “Grace (Eventually)” confront us with the unnerving possibility that, while there is such thing as ultimate Truth, there are an unnerving number of gray areas – complex areas that require a depth of wisdom, soul-searching, and humor that is uncommon in an age marked by ideological flamethrowing. Writers like Lamott are increasingly rare even as they become more necessary. With Tyler Charles, I heartily recommend this book.
John,
I’m not talking about acknowledging that you are a sinner, we all have to do that to get in a right relationship with Christ, but then we have to repent of the that sin, therefore we have to feel bad about our sin. So what I’m saying is, I don’t see the remorse that I know I feel when I sin no matter how big or how small.
You can’t separate abortion into a “political issue”. Your politics on abortion should be derived what what you believe. My stance on Pro-life is not because I’m conservative, it’s because the Bible says that God makes the decision of human life, when we’re born and when we die. You can argue for “choice” all you want to, but then it becomes a human decision and God never gave us that right.
Exactly areas of gray are you referring to? That’s what I continually see on the web-site is a “everything is gray”; “we can’t know the truth”; when God gave us His word so we could know the Truth and be able to apply it to our own lives. Saying that there is absolute truth, but we can’t know it is moral relativism just as is saying there is know absolute truth. It then gives us the license to live our lives as we see fit, instead of crucified to Christ in which we turn over that right to Him.
ALL scripture is God-Breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness… 2 Timothy 3:16
Patrick,
In an earlier incarnation of this comment, I wrote a long paragraph about abortion, war, and the death penalty, but I erased it because discussions on those topics (especially abortion) go nowhere fast. (In all honesty, I have read many of Lamott’s remarks on the subject, and she is often as nasty about “pro-lifers” and “right-wingers” as they are of her.) Perhaps abortion is best discussed face to face, so that each party can see that the other is not a monster.
Suffice it to say, abortion is not a political issue for me. Nor is it for Lamott. Though she and I have profoundly different views on the subject, when Lamott speaks about a woman’s right to choose, the language she employs is the language of morality.
Instead I return you to my original point, which is that it is inappropriate to rebuke a reviewer (or anybody) for recommending a book that includes opinions and, yes, even morals, other than your own. Even if issues such as abortion, the environment, and Lamott’s most frequent topics, family and faith, are uncomplicated for you; and even if you disagree with her position on every one of these subjects – there is still great value in reading about them, especially from a writer as talented as Lamott. If we’re lucky, we might learn to see God working in the most unexpected of places. At the very least, these books can deepen us and help develop compassion.
Finally, I doubt very much that you will find the phrases “everything is gray” and “we can’t know the truth” on this site. What you will find, I hope, is an appreciation for the complexity of life and some small shred of help – born out of the lived experiences of our writers and commentors – in navigating life’s minefields. (What you will find more than that are confessions, stories of the times when we’ve failed.)
“Moral relativism” is a phrase with real meaning and important implications. Let’s not waste it here.
Chris and Patrick,
Your statement about absolute truth is the very crux of all of your arguments with this site, and it think your judgment of Anne Lamott and many of our writers stems from you thinking you understand that truth. I also think it’s heresy, because you’re substituting The Truth (Jesus Christ, as written in John) for “the truth” (an infinite laundry list of political affiliations, moral stances and beliefs). you cannot know exactly how God stands on every issue. It’s impossible, and thankfully, unneeded because grace absolves us.
If everything is black and white, then which are you? Where do you stand? I’d guess you probably do some good things, and you want to follow Christ, but I’d also guess you do evil. For every one of our writers, that is the “gray” that you dismiss, the fact that we are forgiven, but we still seem to slip up. That’s why young believers in the millions become disillusioned, because we’ve got leaders telling us life is black and white, and we don’t see things that way. We don’t see abortion doctors or terrorists or adulterers as evil, as simple as that seems. We see them as men and women who are constantly confronted by God and Satan, constantly hoping to do the right thing, and constantly failing.
It’s easy for us to understand because we see ourselves the same way.
I’m 90% positive you’ve never read Anne Lamott’s books (don’t worry, I haven’t either). I could be wrong, but how about reading through one before your blood pressure gets pumping and you rebuke us?
Jordan,
As I’ve said before, there are things that God doesn’t answer specifically for us in the Bible (who to marry, what job to take, what mission trip to go on) however, He’s pretty specific on a lot of things and yes we can know how HE feels about those. He lists them as ways to live and ways not to live, so for me to repeat what HE has said is not heresy. You can’t point to Christ in the Book of John and ignore Christ in the Book of Isaiah, Genesis, Romans, 1 Corinthians and the rest of the Books of the Bible.
John,
You might want to take a look at Jordan’s post. He basically proves my point. I can’t know the truth and the “gray” that I dismiss.
Patrick,
I could also say, based on the Bible, that I “feel” God condones slavery, Patrick.
Tell me where the Bible says you, as a human, can decide who’s named “Christian” or not. Tell me where you can know the very thoughts of God on every morality issue confronting believers today? Where is God’s stance on the internet? Where is His stance on television? Where is His stance on democracy, or capitalism, or communism? What about God’s stance on war? I mean, you’ve got God telling the Israelites to commit genocide in the Old Testament, and you’ve got Christ telling us to turn the other cheek in the New. That’s a headscratcher for a lot of folks, because most people don’t think God just means you turn the other cheek when someone slaps you…they think it has more meaning than that.
As for John’s comment, it might surprise you to know not everyone at Burnside believes the exact same thing, just as it might surprise you to know that God-fearing and Christ-following theologians have studied the Bible for millenia and come up with different conclusions.
Don’t give me lectures on context. You can’t point to Christ in the Book of Isaiah or Genesis or Romans or 1 Corinthians or any other book of the Bible and ignore John. That’s the most infuriating red herring in Christian discussion today, like somehow I’ve got “The Liberal Bible” and you’ve got “The True Bible”, and I’m confused about so much because I’m not reading the right verses. Give me a break.
You didn’t mention my question: if everything is black or white, which are you?
Jordan,
First of all I’ve been washed white by the blood of Christ. That doesn’t mean I don’t sin. That means that I recognize and admit that sin and am sorry for it. The whole point I was trying to make was that based on Tyler’s description of Ms. Lamott, there is no remorse ( I believe he used the word arrogant and violent). Those are words that identify with the character of Christ (even as He’s described in the Book of John.)
Look at 1 John 1:5-10;This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in Him there is no darkness at all. If we claim to have fellowship with Him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son, purifies us from all sin. If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word his no place in our lives.” Tyler’s description of Ms. Lamott is saying that she feels she’s not sinning. That’s the arrogance and violent I’m talking about.
So what you’re saying is that as long as someone claims to be a Christian then we should just accept what they say as truth. If Oprah claims she is a Christian even though her life shows know evidence, then we should just follow her lead?
Jordan,
The internet itself is not a morality question? How we use the internet is where morality comes in. If I’m using the internet to examine pornographic websites, then there’s a problem. If I’m using the internet to share Christ with someone oversees or to encourage a fellow believer in another place, then that ‘s what it’s all about. As far as the turn the other cheek is concerned, you and I have had this discussion before and we’re never going to agree on it. You think is someone comes in to murder you family, you should turn the other cheek and let it go. And yes, context and how a verse in John fits into broader scripture is important. What was meant by the original language used is important.
I don’t have all the answers, and ultimately I don’t know who is a christian and who is not, that is ultimately between them and Him. But God did give us His word and He did instruct us on the evidence of salvation. I hope Ms. Lamott is a christian. Believe it or not I don’t want to see anyone spend eternity in Hell.
“The whole point I was trying to make was that based on Tyler’s description of Ms. Lamott, there is no remorse ( I believe he used the word arrogant and violent).”
Patrick, I’m sure there are sins in your life you haven’t been convicted of yet. I’m sure there are times when you behave remorselessly. I’m sure there are times when you behave arrogantly and violently.
I know there are times like that for me. It doesn’t mean I don’t run a Christian website, and it doesn’t mean you’re not a Christ follower, and it doesn’t mean Anne Lamott is not a Christian writer. If it did, our salvation would be constantly in flux…we might be reading our Bible and die and go to heaven, but the next second we may be looking at a woman’s breasts and die and go to Hell.
I would not solely follow Oprah, even if she is a powerful woman and has lots of money. So no, I’m not saying that. I’m pretty sure every human except Christ, is going to fall short on that.
(Also, I’m not sure why you keep bringing up Oprah…but it does make me chuckle.)
“I don’t have all the answers, and ultimately I don’t know who is a christian and who is not, that is ultimately between them and Him.”
I think Anne Lamott would agree, which is why she writes books and tried to be as honest as she can and doesn’t present a false front so people will think she’s good and pure. THAT is what so many readers appreciate about her, even if they’re pro-life.
Tyler, thank you for writing this review, of responding thoughtfully to a writer who wears her faith on her sleeve and is honest to a fault.
Patrick,
First of all, thanks for your interest in my article.
I’ll touch on your comments about “truth” first. I believe someone can “unearth truth” without personally labeling it as such. And I think some of her “thoughts” are profound truths. Some of her thoughts aren’t. That being said, in a 253-page book, I believe a writer has plenty of time to be right and wrong. If we’re determined to label such things…
I disagree with some of her beliefs, as I said. As for her lack of brokenness, that is what I perceive in her writing. I can’t know her heart. And she never says, “I’m not broken!” Yes, Christians should experience brokenness. But when we start accusing Christians of not being Christian enough…that doesn’t lead to anything good.
I recommended this book (and still do) because it’s beautifully written, and because we can learn a lot from Anne Lamott. I don’t expect her to live a perfect life, and I appreciate that she can write honestly about her flaws. If we only wanted to read personal accounts from perfect Christians, we wouldn’t have any books to read. At least not any honest ones.
You make a good point about a young Christian reading this book and being led astray. Although, instead of turning away from their faith, I think reading this book would more likely prompt said young Christian to question. And, based on my experience, it is after questioning that we come to a deeper understanding. So, perhaps, even what we perceive to be Lamott’s flawed beliefs could lead Christians to a deeper understanding of truth.
As for “arrogant” and “violent.” I called her “violently pro-choice.” And I never used the word arrogant.
I want to quote a passage from John (Pattison, that is):
“I, for one, am more edified by a single well-crafted memoir that depicts real-life in all of its joy, pain and absurdity than by an entire bookshelf of devotionals and hagiographies.”
I say amen to that. If Lamott had written a different sort of book, the rules would be different. If she had written these beliefs in a devotional, for example, then perhaps you could label her a “false prophet.” But she is just sharing her personal beliefs and opinions. It sounds like you would like her to provide scriptural basis (chapter and verse) to support every idea she possesses. But how many Christians could do that? And for those who can’t (including me), does that make them not real Christians?
Have you personally read any of Lamott’s books? Because your opinions seem to be based entirely upon the things I mentioned in my review.
Also, please know that I’m trying to respond to your statements regarding what I have written. I’m not attacking you or your faith. Christians do too much of that sometimes. We might disagree on some issues, but we agree on the most important things. And that’s true for Anne Lamott, too.
Even with all the controversy surrounding her, Anne Lamott has some very good insight on what it means to be a Christian. This book had far less political griping than I expected (after reading Plan B), and showed evidence of spiritual growth from Traveling Mercies. Sure she’s not perfect, but that’s what makes her words so compelling. She is transparent to an extent that every reader can see themselves in her words. And seeing myself on paper usually motivates me to change.
Sheesh…I just finished Anne’s 3 most recent books. I came online to find out more about her…found this blog…this arguing over whether she is/isn’t a real truth believing/spouting Christian writer is so much poppycock! Obviously God loved her enough to answer her call for Him to come in…that should be enough for all of you. None of us are the Holy Spirit…it is not our job to decide how she should respond to the leadings of Christ in HER life. I can tell you that I was much more refreshed in Christ by reading her real stories…and I am sure Jesus is too…than going over this old argument about who does and does not really belong to Him. No wonder the world wants nothing to do with Jesus…
I am reviewing any new release from any sector for a class in Christian journalism and picked this one up. I guess I would have read Lamott eventually, pardon the pun, given that so many tout Bird by Bird to be so great.
Grace Eventually is subtle eventually. I was impressed to read in the first review here that her hatred for someone in a white house was confusing the topic of her title. However, I did see a slice of light when she talked about realizing her hatred of him took too much of her soul time and required an attitude adjustment. Subtle entries of grace realized. Subtle entries of grace accepted on her part, really, seeing how little she seems to know and own about the Bible.
Having lived in her generation all my life, I can understand some of her talk, but her provincial viewpoint, living in the same area all her life, does show.
I give her grace myself. She is a woman aware and seeking. She can’t help it if she doesn’t know everything theologically so as to agree with a Christian modicum that prevails. Jesus died for her, too, and she is a sister of mine. She, if she truly believes that Christ did the sacrificial thing, and denies not the Savior, then she will be in heaven, abortioned and all.
Lest anyone think I am pro-”unchristian” stuff: I am the child of a gang rape. my mother’s parents tried to take her for an abortion in 1952, but I was too far along, and the doctor would not perform the dastardly deed. And here I am, a joyful, blessed woman with an incredibly happpy sweet life. But I love people–gay, sick, stoned, drunk, lonely, bossy, whatever–the way God loves people.
So I take this book to heart, and will try to pray for Lamott, that she will never stop seeking through God’s word the truth He has spoken to us all.
I need to go write my review for class now.
God bless all of you and God bless Ann Lamott.