I have to say to Anne Rice: "Okay. Whatever."
What I'm tempted to say is: Christianity is not about you; and maybe that's the problem. Sure, it's a "quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group." But name me one group of human society that isn't. I understand you aren't "anti-gay...anti-feminist...anti-artifical birth control...anti-Democrat...anti-secular humanism...anti-science...or anti-life." Neither am I. I won't go so far as to say that you can't quit Christianity in the name of Christ, since it isn't at all clear to me that Jesus of Nazareth meant to have anything like modern Christianity follow in his wake. But it is clear to me that the gospels all speak of communities of believers, and so to declare yourself "committed to Christ" but through with "being a Christian" sounds a little solipsistic and not more than a little self-centered and self-interested. After all, it takes a community to confirm a religious experience; when its confirmed only by the person who has it, we call that a delusion.
These two tweets by Ms. Rice make me think of my favorite line from "Angels and Demons"*:
"My church comforts the sick and the dying. My church feeds the hungry. What does your church do? Oh, that's right, you don't have a church!"Which is not at all an argument for joining a church, but it draws a bright line between the community of believers (disputatious and infamous as they may well be) and the individual who, in essence, declare themself holier than they. Then again, there is no argument for joining a church. Being part of a church is like being in a committed relationship: what argument would ever persuade you to do such a thing? There are plenty of arguments for bailing out of relationships; but who argues themselves into one? If someone does, it's pretty clear they don't really want to go through with it. When someone makes the an argument after getting out of a relationship, though, who are they trying to persuade? And why?
*which is more to the point than might at first seem.