At a friend’s suggestion I am reading Frank Schaeffer’s controversial memoir, Crazy for God, about what it was like to grow up at L’Abri as the only son of evangelical superstars Francis and Edith Schaeffer (to give you a hint at the perspective from which he writes, the book’s subtitle is 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).
It becomes clear pretty early on in the book that it was Edith more than anyone else who was the engine that drove the home and defined the family’s piety. Of his mother, Frank writes:
“I have a photo album Mom made of my childhood pictures. Mom wrote many odd captions that have a lot more to do with her spiritual ambition for her children than with reality. Almost every caption has a strange spiritual twist to it. For instance, next to a picture of me playing with a friend when I was seven or eight, Mom wrote: ‘Frankie sitting with his friend, explaining Christian Basics.’ I’m positive I was doing no such thing: we were playing cowboys and Indians.
“Mom’s spiritual pride, mixed with fierce spiritual ambition for her children, mixed with a willingness to be a doormat to her overbearing husband—as a further example of her piety and her ability to be the perfect wife for the Lord’s sake, while Dad was so far from perfect—left my sisters and me with a lifetime of conflicted emotions. Whose side were we on? Whose side should we be on? How much Christian service was enough? Should we try to live up to Mom’s spiritual fantasies about us? How could we ever live up to Mom’s spiritual expectations on the one hand, and to her absurd claims about her children’s spirituality and zeal on the other? …
“The superspiritual pietistic grid through which Mom saw life was a heavy load for her children to bear. Should I have been explaining ‘Christian Basics’ to that friend? Was the only point of playing cowboys and Indians to get it to the moment in a friendship where I could try convert him? If he didn’t convert, was it my fault?
“The implication was that whatever you were doing for the Lord, more was required. Normal life was just a series of interludes between bouts of evangelical zeal. And the spiritual pride that underlay Mom’s zeal made her children grow up with the feeling that no matter what we did to serve the Lord, it was never enough. Mom had gotten there first, and the rest of us weren’t even in the race.”
(Insert shudder here.)
There are so many warning flags in this passage that it’s difficult to know where to start (although we must concede that this presents only one side of the picture). I’ll just make a few observations to highlight some points of potential danger to open the discussion, and feel free to agree or disagree, or to chime in with others:
For crying out loud, let kids be kids every once in a while.
And while we’re at it, let earth be earth, too.
Don’t ever seek to make your children’s piety validate your own.
“Every-member ministry” is a bigger burden than many of the laity can bear.
And finally, we are all hardwired for law and default to it by nature, but sometimes the ones who are most susceptible to legalism are those who are the most deliberate when it comes to their spiritual ambitions for their children.
(Maybe this is why raising children is a facet of the earthly kingdom while producing disciples is a component of the heavenly one? While there is certainly overlap between the two, the fact remains that the former requires fathers, but the latter also requires ministers who can more skillfully navigate the difference between the law and the gospel.)
Jason, I completely agree with all of the implications you draw from these quotes. What I find exceedingly sad about Frank Schaeffer, however, is the unbridled bitterness he seems to hold against his parents. Legalistic pietists are sinners, too. Forgiveness is ours in Christ, and ours to extend even to our misguided, sinful parents.
ReplyDeleteGood points. I have to wonder though, how much of this is just his perspective and impression as a child? As opposed to what was really going on?
ReplyDeleteThe climax of the post is the law gospel distinction. What? Really? Come on. It's just sin. Plain simple sin is at the root of the problems with Frank and his family not a theological distinction.
ReplyDeleteEddie,
ReplyDeleteI'm sure there's some of that, but he does try to be fair (from what I've read, anyway). For example, he asks his sisters to each write their own reflections of his parents and includes them, and he also reproduces a letter from his mom that he received at around age ten when she was away with Francis.
J,
ReplyDeletePlain simple sin is at the root of the problems with Frank and his family not a theological distinction.
Really? So if you give your own kids the impression that they're never doing enough for the Lord, to the point where they abandon your faith and then go around writing books about it, you don't think you've got a theological problem? Why else would they get THAT impression?
Jason, you're one of the first to take Frank's side against Edith. Not surprised given your 2k theology. But I wonder if Frank is culpable at all? Or, if he has changed, if what he said he now repudiates, should he be making money off that?
ReplyDeleteAs for letting kids have a life, I do wonder about the 24/7 nature of both experimental forms of Protestantism not to mention the piety of neo-Calvinism. If every single second of life is lived before the face of God, can you ever take a break? (Of course, every second is, but does it always have to feel like you've entered the holy of holies?)
DG,
ReplyDeleteJason, you're one of the first to take Frank's side against Edith.
Aww, shucks. What can I say I like Orthodoxy better than evangelicalism.
But I wonder if Frank is culpable at all? Or, if he has changed, if what he said he now repudiates, should he be making money off that?
We can only speculate. I think he has some newer book on his mother, sex, and politics. So the guy certainly has some issues, but the picture he is painting does sound very familiar as I think back to my own days in those kinds of circles.
As for letting kids have a life, I do wonder about the 24/7 nature of both experimental forms of Protestantism not to mention the piety of neo-Calvinism. If every single second of life is lived before the face of God, can you ever take a break? (Of course, every second is, but does it always have to feel like you've entered the holy of holies?)
I know. If you’re always in the holy of holies, then how is it still holy? Over against what is it set apart?
It is interesting how that Frank says of his dad that he struggled to reconcile the very narrow fundamentalism that he inherited when he was young with the broader love for culture and art that he seemed to care most about later in life. Maybe a healthy dose of 2K would have helped him sleep better at night.
Or a screening of The Wire.
ReplyDeleteAn hour with Brother Mouzone might could work.
ReplyDeleteI’ve only flipped through the book a few years ago, but ever since I’ve wondered how much junior has been simply applying the tactics he learned, only in reverse for whatever reasons.
ReplyDeleteBut, in keeping with some 2k points being made, it is interesting for him to have chosen Orthodoxy which has its own version of all-of-life-is-sacred. With the recycled tactics coupled with a form of 1k, I have to wonder if there is a distinction without a difference between junior’s rearing and his present devotions. Kind of like Protestant liberalism and fundamentalism.
Zrim,
ReplyDeleteFrank is actually very complimentary toward his parents, and goes out of his way to highlight how compassionate and open they were to gays, single moms, the mentally disabled, etc. Not that you're doing this, but I think those who would say that he is just bitterly attacking his parents haven't read the book, or have only read the sordid bits.
How do you think EO is another version of the whole 1K, taking America back for Jesus idea?
JJS, well, while I’m certainly not on the bitterly attacking bandwagon (like I said, I just flipped through it), I would have to say that the cumulative affect does seem less than charitable. Not that I want to make things safe for those who paved the way for the Moral Majority, but the title alone seems to suggest not all the fundamentalism has been shaken off. And do you get the feeling you’re reading things you shouldn’t be, as in airing of family grievances, as in being invited to Frank’s place for Festivus, as in awkward? I did, which was why I decided not to purchase and look for Raymond Carver’s new biography instead.
ReplyDeleteMy point about EO isn’t that it trends toward some form of nationalism. It’s that it seems to have the sort of sacramental worldview that aligns better with 1k than 2k. Schaeffer doesn’t seem warm about his mother’s “superspiritual pietistic grid.” I sympathize, but wouldn’t confessional Reformed orthodoxy which makes plenty of room for life to be secular be a better way to combat it than an Orthodoxy which says all of life is sacred? I don’t know, just seems like wiping a dirty nose with an oily rag.
I agree with Zrim that one gets the feeling from this book that we're reading things we shouldn't be. There's something distasteful about the airing of a family's dirty laundry in public, and for what reason? It's hard to see any useful purpose served by this screed against his folks. We all can find sins and failings in our parents; they're sinners as we are. But to write a book about their failings, in such bitter terms? I can't imagine writing such a book about my folks, and I hope my kids don't about me. Whatever thin theological or historical value lies in these bitter musings is outweighed by the dishonor shown these two people, in my opinion. Not clear why one would write such a book. Unless you're an angry guy who is serving a vendetta. It would have been more honoring to their memory to work through it on a counselor's couch, or forgive them for their failings, than to sit at a keyboard pounding out a screed.
ReplyDeleteS., again, I haven’t read the book, but obviously I agree with your point.
ReplyDeleteStill, I also have to admit that I do get a kick out of how the book rattles those who are sympathetic to the contemporary project of civic righteousness that senior helped create. Their problem isn’t so much the how such a tell-all betrays familial decencies but how it undermines the cause of cultural Christianity. After all, does anyone imagine they’d be howling about betrayal if Madalyn Murray O’Hair’s kids wrote a similar book?
Zrim, I'm not sure the book makes any dent in the civic righteousness or neo-Calvinist cause, but it does seem to put a big dent in the Fifth Commandment.
ReplyDeleteHaving read the book and watched/read quite a few interviews with Frank Schaeffer, he has what I believe to be a valid reason for airing what some would consider to be his family's "dirty laundry." It's certainly not to dishonor his parents, whom it is quite evident that he loves with all of his heart. He feels that much of what he helped his father to do (namely, establishing fundamentalist Christianity as a political power) needs to be atoned for, in a sense. He feels that a monster was created that was neither intended nor foreseen, and that not only does he see it as a gross misrepresentation of Christianity, but that his parents would as well. He laments the fact that Francis and Edith felt that it was their duty to live the way they lived and to be involved with some of the "ministries" they were involved with, and his observation of them over the years is that they would lament it as well. He's not airing his family's dirty laundry as much as he wants people to see who his parents would have truly been had they not had fundamentalism thrust upon them as it was. (Edith by her parents and Francis by Edith.)
ReplyDeletexianking, if Frank wanted to critique the Christian right or the political efforts of fundamentalists, that would have been a worthwhile and legitimate book to write. But it doesn't further that objective to use such harsh language about his mother and father ("spiritual pride," "spiritual fantasies," or to say a word about the internal dynamics of the family. He hurts his cause by making his readers think less of him and tagging him, rightly, as a nasty and small individual who dishonored his parents. I don't think he "atoned" for anything.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePerhaps he should have written it more like the bible is written, where harsh language is rarely used, the pride of public, godly men is never mentioned and dirty laundry is never aired.
ReplyDeleteThe word "screed" keeps being used to describe CFG, but I certainly don't read it as such. Again, I think to get a proper perspective one needs to actually read the book rather than overreacting to what one thinks it says.
ReplyDeleteThe Bible has all that and more, but what the Bible doesn't have is a passage condoning a son's public and bitter criticisms of his mother and father.
ReplyDeleteWell, I have yet to read any bitter criticisms of his mother and father by him.
ReplyDeleteI've read the book. For what it's worth, Os Guinness, who was around Schaeffer, thinks it presented a pretty badly distorted view of Edith Schaeffer.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that's worth much, mozart, since Frank is in a position in which he is more able to offer a truer picture of his own mother than someone outside the family, who lived on another continent, who was a professional colleague of Edith's husband.
ReplyDeleteBut then, Frank does say that he is only offering his own reflections which pass through his own memory bank (which is all anyone can do when writing about some event or person).
I do find it curious that people seem so offended at a critical take on Edith Schaeffer when they haven;t read the book (I know that excludes you since you read it). I think Zrim makes a good point: would we be so angry if the subject of the book were Madelaine Murray O'Hare?
I don't know Jason--is it a "truer picture" necessarily? When it comes to family relationships--I don't know. I have read one of Frank's other works--"Portofino," which was very funny, but a semi-disguised picture of his family on whom he was taking potshots. Frank struck me as an angry right-winger when he was writing scripts for his Dad's movies, and now he is any angry anti-evangelical and left winger. He is a messed-up dude, I think. Guinness said he was spoiled rotten.
ReplyDeleteConsider the source. Here's a guy that caricatures the reformed faith, only to repudiate it and join up with the papists without the pope Orthodox.
ReplyDeleteOn top of that, he rejects the GW Bush version of a Stalinist personality cult only to become a bootlick member of the GW Obama version.
In short, Frank is a talented, but tormented and confused individual, if not unregenerate.
Way to be open-minded there, Bob!
ReplyDeleteYeah, Bob, talk about screeds. But if you’re going to go revivalist and play the unregenerate card maybe that’s your way of saying you don’t like how the book undermines one side of the culture war? If so, that would be way more becoming than channeling Gilbert Tennant.
ReplyDeleteWow.
ReplyDeleteOf course it's the usual suspects!
I'm open minded enough, Jason, but I also read what the man says. For starters, he thinks evangelical fundamentalism is the reformed faith. As for Orthodoxy, well enough said.
I've met a few Orthodox and Frank would seem to fit in quite well.
Yo, Grim, talk about screeds. You still hurtin from defending the Oakland school district from jamming LGBT propaganda down the throat of 4th graders?
Again, Frank speaks for himself, quite loudly and for the record is not quite 2k yet, having thrown himself into the arms and camp of the liberal/progressives over at Huffington Post.
Me. I ain't happy with Pat Robertson either, but HuffPo? Come on.
He needs your diatribe more than I do.
cordially
Bob, you’re making good progress—no unregenerate cards. But I see some name-calling. Two steps forward, one step back.
ReplyDeleteBut in case you missed it, this suspect hasn't been giving Frank all green lights. I chose Raymond Carver's biography over Schaeffer's since I not only do I find Carver more interesting but to purchase Scahffer seemed like funding impropriety. Maybe I'll wait for a copy to show up on a "Free" table in the narthex.
Thanks for this. As a deeply flawed father myself, sounds like a worthwhile read. I have pretty much left all things Franky as well as Francis in the past. Not that I'm not deeply indebted to Francis as he was an oasis to me while I was in college. And Frankly did, to a lesser degree, help spur my own interest in politics. OTOH Francis' flirtation with politics near the end of his life, particularly theonomy (even though I didn't know what theonomy was a the time), did make me leery. Still does.
ReplyDeleteGrim,
ReplyDeleteRead the post.
Never said he was unreg, but possibly.
True, my bad. I've read ahead.
The preamble to his latest book is online.(No interest here in buying his smears as he seeks to work his way out from under the shadow of his father, which he doesn't need to do in print.)
Again, in opposition to evangelical dispensational fundamentalism i.e. real Christianity, he posits the joys of existential and Orthodox mysticism - which if he really believed, he wouldn't be trying to sell us books telling us about it. That, as well as other further objectionable weird comments.
"Name-calling"?
There's a place and a time for all things.
Still don't get it?
That's what I thought.
See ya.