Frank Schaeffer

[MarcusOfLycia]

I'd heard of Frank before because I had read some of the material that his father (I believe) wrote as a Christian. Well, I read this article today:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham ... orean-desp

I'm baffled that someone with that kind of exposure to Christianity could be that absolutely wrong and ignorant about it. I don't usually consider people stupid, but I'm leaning that way with this guy. Does he realize that Christianity not only was founded over 1000 years after the Bronze Age, but that it has survived into the modern age? Does he understand what 'innerancy' is? Does he have any idea how deeply entwined equality of all (regardless of race) and Christianity are tied together?

For someone with all the access to a wealth of information that he has, he seems like a spoiled brat in a toy store... never appreciating or understanding any of it but pretending to. I think after reading that I'm much more likely to dismiss the guy flat-out without giving him the time of day.

Does anyone else have any experience with him?

[Canuckster1127]

I'd heard of Frank before because I had read some of the material that his father (I believe) wrote as a Christian. Well, I read this article today:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham ... orean-desp

I'm baffled that someone with that kind of exposure to Christianity could be that absolutely wrong and ignorant about it. I don't usually consider people stupid, but I'm leaning that way with this guy. Does he realize that Christianity not only was founded over 1000 years after the Bronze Age, but that it has survived into the modern age? Does he understand what 'innerancy' is? Does he have any idea how deeply entwined equality of all (regardless of race) and Christianity are tied together?

For someone with all the access to a wealth of information that he has, he seems like a spoiled brat in a toy store... never appreciating or understanding any of it but pretending to. I think after reading that I'm much more likely to dismiss the guy flat-out without giving him the time of day.

Does anyone else have any experience with him?

I do. I've heard him speak from his days when he was echoing his father and I've followed him and read his autobiography and done a review of it on Amazon which I'll link to.

First, the blog source carries it's own bias and perspective and it's not too surprising that Frank Schaeffer would not be high on their list as he's not a political or religious conservative any longer and he's something of an embarrassment to those who are because he bears the name of one of the foundational evangelical teachers. Francis Schaeffer was not a political conservative either but as he's dead that doesn't really matter that much.

Franky is now an Eastern Orthodox believer and he's political left and active and open in his writings and criticisms. I don't agree with him on everything but I do appreciate his openness and honesty and I think I'd suggest reading his autobiography or some of his other writings before just accepting how he's painted by his ideological detractors. You may not change your mind, but you may be a little better informed about who he is, what he's saying and why he's saying it.

http://www.amazon.com/review/R2LYIWX6UO ... r_rdp_perm

[MarcusOfLycia]

I'll give it a look, but it sounds contradictory that he'd be an eastern orthodox christian (I've heard that before I think) and still suggest that Christian belief is outdated nonsense. Eastern orthodoxy claims to be the oldest and purest Christian tradition (as most do), so that would seem self-defeating. Is there something I'm missing here? Its definitely very possible... I just don't know what it is.

[narnia4]

I don't think I'd be as generous as Canuckster. I think he's angry and bitter, I haven't read his book but I have read his blog and older books of his. In his blog he comes across as very angry, bitter, and frankly mean-spirited. It isn't really my place to judge, but I don't see a Christ-like compassion coming out of his work. Francis Schaeffer certainly effected my interest in apologetics but I didn't read any books from Francis or Frank until I knew about Frank having left Evangelical circles and becoming VERY critical of the "religious right". That fact may have changed my viewing of it, but even in his older books I thought that he came across as... hard, for lack of a better word.

As an example, he made some movies in the mid to late 80's. Here's the description from IMDb about a movie he made in 1986, called "Wired to Kill"-

"In the near future, law and order breaks down, diseases, violence and immorality are rampant. However, one Christian young man decides not to turn the other cheek anymore. He modifies his wheelchair to help him protect his home and family, and kill the thugs first."

One called Rising Storm (1989, and apparently content issues)-

"The year is 2099. The United States is ruled by the Reverend Jimmy Joe II, in a dictatorship where big guns and fundamentalist religion are used to keep the masses in control..."

Finally from 1989, one called Headhunter-

"A Miami cop finds out his wife has a female lover, and he begins to have an affair with his female partner. Meanwhile, a voodoo demon from Africa arrives among Miami's Nigerian community and begins decapitating some people and possessing others--including the cop's wife."

I don't know if these are supposed to be a mindless action flicks, but I tend to think that at least the first two are supposed to have some sort of "message" (definitely a satire for the second one, possibly the first as well if he had already left Evangelical circles). Either way, however, it seems to me that he has a very warped view of the people he used to be in contact with so often and not very long at all after having left those circles he was making movies that I simply couldn't see a Christian who is walking right with God being the driving force behind a movie like "Headhunter". It seems surprising, but I do think its possible that sometimes people never really do "get it".

As far as what Frank wrote about his parents, I have read his allegations and while I expect there is some foundation to them I find it distasteful and disrespectful. Os Guiness is one that lived with the Schaeffers and has said that while there was a "darker side", it wasn't like Frank said. I'll have to try to dig up those quotes sometime... I don't doubt that it wasn't perfect, but I think Frank definitely has issues.

[Canuckster1127]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Labelling someone as bitter is an effective way to write-off what they have to say, especially in evangelical circles (and I say that as one within those circles.)

What Frank has to say is harsh in places. There's no question however that evangelicals (and not just evangelicals) have a tendency to elevate people and form "personality cults" where the teachings of one particular teacher is made to be front and center above everyone. That's been done with the Schaeffers, Billy Graham, James Dobson, and C.S. Lewis probably more than anybody I can immediately think of in evangelical circles. It's done in reformed and neo-reformed circles with John Piper and R.C. Sproul. It was done in Charismatic circles when I was in school with Oral Robers and Kenneth Hagin.

Aside from the fact that these types of things occured in the early Church as well, evidenced by I Cor 3:4 and the need to warn the church in Corinth against such personality cults, it's nothing new. Those who dare to point out when and where "the emperor has no clothes" are summarily dismissed by some of the faithful as "bitter" and especially so when it's someone from with the family or inside the ministry. It's usually easier just to silence the voice than to address the issues.

It might be that Frank has issues to deal with. He's certainly left the religious right wing camp that adopted him and adopted his Father (although it's not clear that Francis Schaeffer is completely of the belief system that represent the political and religious right in America.) Frank has certainly capitalized on his name and family, both when he was coming into the circles when he was young and then later, his name made him appealing to those willing to adopt his voice as someone "exposing" what went on before.

I've long ceased to have the need to defend national leaders. I've come to believe that the whole hierarchical and personality cult thing is counter-productive. It's enough for me to walk with Christ and to know those people that I'm connected with personally through several venues. I have authors that I appreciate still and so I'm not beyond having human figures that I look to for teaching, but there's a different quality to that for me now. I'm not hurt or surprised when I learn that any person has feet of clay. I don't desire to place people on pedestals any more. It does them a disservice as well as me and those following. Christ is head and I'll look to him. I thank God for those gifted as teachers. At the end of the day however, they're no more and no less human than me and anyone else.

So, without apology, I'm much more lenient with extending grace toward someone like Frank Schaeffer and I'll even list to what they have to say. For me, it's not about "attacking patron saints" it's simply acknowledging what I already know about myself and others. There's few place lonelier and more demanding than on a pedestal where people have an emotional investment in how good a "leader" looks. I've been in that spot at times. I don't wish it on others and for my part, I try not to operate in that old system and allow Christ to be enough and give grace to others.

[MarcusOfLycia]

I have the same frustrations at times with 'idol' worship in evangelical circles. However, I think one thing that bugs me about Frank Schaeffer is that he has pursued parallel avenues for becoming well-known and there are people who hold him up in the same way. It seems hypocritical to me.

Its one thing for a Christian to oppose unchristian practices committed by Christians. Its another thing for a Christian to oppose other Christians to such an extreme as to be second-guessed as a Christian in the first place. It just feels like a backlash kind of attitude. I personally don't know anyone in any belief system who doesn't hold some people up as examples or great minds to listen to. I think, overall, that's how most Christians treat CS Lewis and others. As I said, it bugs me when it becomes more than that, and I definitely understand that point. But lumping all evangelicals together as I've seen Frank do seems to miss what most evangelicals really think. And none of that says anything about how detrimental this whole thing is towards Christian unity.

I do agree as well that it seems pointless when Christians place their faith in politicians. At the same time, we live in a country that encourages everyone to do that, and I don't know that its fair to oppose Christians alone on that point (even more so when the person doing it claims to be a Christian) without any tone of reconciliation or forgiveness.

Granted, I have most certainly not read as much of Frank Schaeffer as I would need to do draw the fairest conclusion. What I have read, however, has me confused to what he believes and at the same time feeling that he harbors some great animosity towards many Christian groups. It feels like all the issues he addresses could be addressed in far more Christ-like ways, and its a bit disappointing that it isn't, I guess.

[narnia4]

Or else calling someone bitter COULD be a truthful statement. I do think its kind of odd the way some figures has been elevated, I've been a C.S. Lewis fan for a long time but I'm very well aware of issues with his theology and things that 99% of Evangelicals wouldn't like at all.

The blog posts I've read, and I'll readily admit that I'm not the Judge and even if I were "a" judge I don't have enough to really incriminate him, I don't find them edifying or graceful or loving. We can't judge a man's heart, but were it not for his claim that he converted to the Orthodox Church I would guess that he has left Christianity altogether based on the words I've read.

I'm not talking about whether he has a point or not, in fact I think he does. That does not excuse him, however. There's a certain way to make a point without simply attacking an entire group of people. I can stomach some strong language, I've used some against groups like atheists myself... but a complete lack of grace is the best way I can think to describe him. There are many strong believers in Christ here from many different denominations and traditions. I'm sure many of them have been hurt and feel strongly about their beliefs, but I rarely if ever see them attack about half the Christians in the US the way that Frank does.

I probably am a little too harsh, but imo if people have written him off he bears a large portion of the blame with the way he carries himself. Let's say a sincere Christian is part of the "religious right" and may prop up a guy like Francis Schaeffer as an idol. If a person in THAT position sees a book by Schaeffer's son called "Sex, Mom, and God: How the Bible's Strange Take on Sex Led to Crazy Politics--and How I Learned to Love Women (and Jesus) Anyway" or "Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of It Back". What is this Evangelical expected to do? Be happy about it? A mature Christian may listen to what he has to say, but the human response to someone you trusted and supported writing things like that about a person like you would have to be a negative one.

[Proinsias]

but the human response to someone you trusted and supported writing things like that about a person like you would have to be a negative one.

You have to weigh the trust and support against the liking. Sometimes you trust and support more, sometimes you respond negatively. The human response does not have to be a negative one, even if it's highly probable.