‘Faith for People Who Don’t Like Religion’: Interview with Frank Schaeffer

by Becky Garrison 10-14-2009

In my ongoing quest to find a third way between the extremes espoused by the Religious Right and their secular counterparts, I came across the Frank Schaeffer’s latest book Patience with God: Faith for People Who Don’t Like Religion (or Atheism). His insights afforded me considerable food for thought.

How do Rick Warren, C.S. Lewis, and your father represent the Achilles Heel of American evangelicalism?

A Rick Warren, a C. S. Lewis, and a Francis Schaeffer are the essence of evangelical/fundamentalist success, but they also represent the Achilles heel of American evangelicalism. Personality cults with no accountability and no tradition and no structure to fall back on when the “Dear Leader” dies, or is found to have “fallen” — whatever — are no better than the men and women they’re built on. The “something bigger” you thought you joined just turns out to just be some guy named Rick, or maybe Franklin Graham.

How come you were unable to write novels until you left the evangelical/fundamentalist world?

The problem is that evangelical/fundamentalist faith revolves around two directives: Be successful and evangelize. That leads to bad choices. For instance, if you are trying to get people “saved” through your writing instead of writing the best and truest books you can write, you are nothing more than a propagandist. Combine this with commercial interests, and not only are you just a propagandist, you are a gutless wonder who doesn’t want to offend your market. Translation: no F-word in the dialogue please, because the Christian Booksellers Association bookstores won’t stock your book. Oh, and no expressions of doubt either, or embarrassing questions about God, let alone the truth about evangelical leaders.

So if you’re writing a story about, say, a Marine brigade in combat, you’ll have to lie when it comes to dialogue. And if you are writing a memoir, please leave out anything about the flaws of the believers you’ve known (or your saintly parents) and skip the truth about yourself too, if it’s embarrassing.

You say that those involved in full time ministry end up living a lie. How so?

I can’t prove this, but I think that any person who remains a “professional Christian” in the evangelical/fundamentalist world for a lifetime, especially any pastor, risks becoming an atheist and/or a liar. Such individuals put on an act of certainty. Sooner or later they become flakes faking it, or quit. Worse yet, some just stop asking questions. The very fact that a preacher can fool others when he or she has so many doubts makes the self-appointed mediator of faith the deepest cynic of all if, that is, he or she doesn’t embrace paradox. If you have to be correct all the time, while knowing that you are wrong most of the time, you become an actor. Been there, done that. If you think that to “be a Christian” means you have to identify with a club you loathe, you’ll have to choose to redefine your faith or lose it — even if it costs you a paycheck and your “good” life.

Making my final break with my evangelical/fundamentalist past was like turning on some sort of creative tap.

Any advice about how one can be a professional Christian without losing one’s soul?

At its best, faith in God is about thanksgiving, shared suffering, loss, pain, generosity, and love. The best religious people and best secular people learn to ignore their chosen (or inherited) religions’ nastier teachings in order to preserve the spirit of their faith, be that faith in secular humanism, science, or in God. It’s the tediously consistent fundamentalists — religious or atheist — who become monsters. They are so sure they have the truth that they dare claim that only the members of “my” religion will be saved.

What is the same fallacy shared by New Atheism and religious fundamentalism?

It seems to me that the various New Atheist priests, prophets, and gurus have one thing in common with religious fundamentalists: They are old-fashioned literalists. There must be a better way than navigating between an indifferent universe and a Disney “god” of canned, happy evangelical endings or the angry hate-filled god whom my aunt followed and who “told” her to trash her family in favor of a simplistic purity that no one can or should ever attain. Rigid purity is the ultimate denial of paradox. And that denial is the only blasphemy there is. It’s the blasphemy committed against God by all fundamentalists with every false certainty they mouth about him.

Finally, can you define what you mean by hopeful uncertainty?

I believe that we’ll get to a point in our evolution when atheist and religious people abandon the habit of taking things so literally. Liberated from that narrow perspective, we will perceive the overarching truth: The sum of our parts adds up to something altogether unexpected, a spiritual animal whose existence doesn’t make sense but — nevertheless — here we are! There are two ways to see this contradiction. We can regard it as an urgent problem to be solved or as a paradox to be celebrated. I choose the latter.

I think that atheism and fundamentalist religion as we know them will last barely a geological eye-blink just a few hundred or a few thousand years more. Then we will begin to understand that we are spiritual beings and animals; that the universe is impersonal and love preceded it; that we believe and we doubt; that a particle may be in one place and in another place at the same time; and that love is a chemical reaction and a revelation. Above all, I hope that we will someday understand that paradox is the blessed, creative, and freeing nature of reality, not a “problem.”

Becky Garrison is featured in the documentaries The Ordinary Radicals and Nailin’ it to the Church.

Categories: Books, Faith and Politics, Spirituality

CamdenRandel

My parents are both religious people, raised and thought to be good christian. They tried to raise me in the same way but due to better access to education I came up with bothering questions about life and creation that the christianity religion didn't have satisficing answers. I decided this way to be an atheist but still follow the principles that make me a good man, out of common sense not cause they are religious laws.

billybagbomb

Yeah, sorry about that, Canucklehead, I was kinda drunk and didn't really know what I was talking about. I'll try to sober up instead of popping off next time.

canucklehead

in another life I wrote for fotf and still occasionally edit for people who submit to the business for publication; I know the organization quite well, thank you, both in terms of its public face but, perhaps more importantly, also much of what prevails behind the scenes

billybagbomb

Canucklehead: Please excuse me momentarily for "passing judgment" on your post. The "Focus On the Family 'Mom and Dad can do no wrong' view of reality"! What in the name of Ozzie & Harriet are you talking about? Have you really ever even listened to "Focus On the Family" or sympathetically engaged ANY viewpoint other than the prevailing secularist tripe that passes for "cultural critique" in the mainstream media? PLEASE don't react so quickly; take a moment.

Common Loon

As soon as I saw Schaeffer using the terms 'evangelical' and 'fundamentalist' interchangeably, I knew where this was going.

Once we accept the sweeping assertion that all evangelicals are brainwashed Republican minions, Frank is at liberty to lump the greatest Christian writer of the 20th century with Rick Warren. Meanwhile, 'evangelism' is now a dirty word synonymous with power grabs for commercial riches. Perhaps all editions of Mere Christianity have been printed in sweatshops as well.

If C.S. Lewis can be re-cast as a forefather of American prosperity-preaching megachurch televangelists in bed with the religious right, then I'm a fundamentalist bigot too since prayed (gasp) in Jesus' name before eating lunch today.

Maybe I should throw out my Henri Nouwen books too since I bought them at a store that also sells books written by Frank's "evil" dad.

RadicalChristianLibrarian

Like I said, it's not about the person who is idolized, it is that we idolize them. Insert Barney the Dinosaur or Dora the Explorer and the point is the same.

RadicalChristianLibrarian

Bonhoeffer struggled mightily with the question of whether it is OK to counter evil with evil. While he said, "Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act," he also asked his students if it was OK to counter evil with evil, to commit murder, even if that murder is meant to kill an evil person and to save lives. He was quite aware of this conflict.

NMRod is right in that Bonhoeffer's actions did not ultimately accomplish anything- Hitler survived the attempt on his life and took that as proof that he was divinely appointed.

While I admire Bonhoeffer and consider him brave and a man of God, he did not die for his faith in Christ. He was murdered for a political act. Therefore, I don't consider him a martyr. Holding a one-dimensional, simplistic view of people and history denies complexity and allows one to miss the whole truth and lessons of history.

RPierard

Actually, the older I get the less I know. I do not question your veracity; It simply is a matter of interpretation. After all, a colleague responded to a letter I had written to him expressing my approval of the "new" Frank S. with the comment that "I would certainly not like it if my own son said the same things about me after I am gone." Thus I would say that the difference between you and me is not particularly wide. I hope I will have a chance to buy you a drink sometime. RP

SavannahRose

Okay, whatever, RP - I'm lying about reading Frank's books (for what reason?) - you know everything, apparently.

You might have taken note that I did not refer to the quality or lack of quality of any of Frank's books, even his early works. I just don't happen to agree with you that Frank is mean-spirited with regard to his parents. That's the only point I was trying to make. There is no need for you to call my or anyone's veracity into question to make your "point".

Faydine

I worked in Christian radio in the 80s, and while I never met Francis of Edith, they were there from time to time and my colleagues knew them. They all commented on how humble Francis was.

I am still reading Franky's book. It's a hard read because his attitude is so hard to take in large doses. My dad was also a minister, who died this spring. I think I haven't picked up Franky's book since. My dad was flawed too, in many ways like Francis, but not nearly as dogmatic. I have lived with and around people in ministry my whole life and like Franky, knew the CIM mentality well. Sure, it's extreme. Those people do pray for hours a day. But it was very real. I've know many of them to struggle with their faith from time to time, but the hypocrites I've known were on the outskirts more than central to it.

I admit, I wouldn't join an organization if I thought they were hypocrites.

I loved one chapter he wrote about his father -- it seemed balanced and whole. I also loved, deeply, the chapter he wrote on prayer, because his conclusion was that he liked doing it.

But he's stuck in a teen age arguement stage. Even his gripe in this interview about not using the F-word in a Christian book. So write a book and send it to a secular publisher -- lots of writers do. His thinking seems as brittle as those he criticizes, just from the other end of the spectrum.

NMRod

An ideology that engages in evil to supposedly vanquish evil is precisely an appeasement of evil. As civilians and soldier alike are burned and blown to bits (the overwhelming number being civilians after WW I) evil abounds.

We really need to become more investigative historians; it's easy to be in any particular country and believe the elite of that country have always acted with the highest of motives - and that's not a perspective unique to America at all.

It might help by starting to find out how each violent conflict segues to the next; how "The War To End All Wars" was directly the cause of the next bigger one, and how in the interwar period there was duplicity on all sides in pursuit of power and money.

It's no surprise that a victor's version of history becomes the cant of indoctrinated schoolchildren; thinking adults ought to be satisfied with more than self-righteousness and glib excuses instead of troubling truths, otherwise they will be complicit pawns in the endless cycles of violence.

Nevertheless, I recognize it is not easy for us to begin to see things as they really are
and I do have sympathy for those caught up in comfortable and self-serving propaganda. It is not pleasant to hold views that diverge from the majority of mankind or even one's countrymen. Everything you state, I once believed myself, but despite my wishes otherwise, I can no longer in integrity do so.

Moreover, if Christianity is to mean anything other than just another symbolic icon for a nation's war idolatry, as most religions become, then what Jesus had to say on the matter is of ultimate importance to me, no matter how unpleasant or difficult.

It is not possible to otherwise reconcile with Jesus' clear teachings in Matthew 5, 6 and 7, and that has absolutely nothing to do with being either liberal or conservative, both of which have proven that they have only marginally and conveniently to do with following Jesus.

ando

So, Roosevelt and Churchill were both wrong. If only they had appeased
Hitler, like Chamberlin tried to, Hitler would have felt such strong "peace"
emanating from them that he would have quietly gave up his desire to rule
the world. You have a very liberal Western view of the world, tainted by an
abhorrence to anyone who would dare disagree with you.
Christ had a specific mission. His was not a pacifist ideology as the
Christian Left would have us believe. His mission was to redeem the world
and fulfill prophesy. Bonhoeffer was not bound by an ideology that seeks
to appease evil. He saw a greater good, and had the courage and conviction
to stand up for what was right. If only we could stand up and proclaim:
this is the end; but for me it's only the beginning.

NMRod

Yet, unlike Christ, who never sought the death of Pilate or the murderous tyrant Herod, our brother Bonhoeffer sought to kill his enemies. Jesus told Peter to "put up his sword," but Bonhoeffer decided in the end to take it up.

Shortly before this, he had intended to travel to learn from Ghandi about non-violent resistance to evil, but instead, stung by Karl Barth's rebukes, he returned to Germany. He became heavily involved with the German military, and it was their plot of assassination he collaborated with, and with them he perished for his part in the plot.

Bonhoeffer realized the contradiction with what Jesus ordered his disciples. However, the tradition of identification of the church with the state, by an extreme, distorted and unbiblical historical cultural interpretation of select verses in Romans, had been well-established by Martin Luther in Germany. In that culture that had only lately become thoroughly idolatrous, the Constantinian heresy itself that was common Catholic and Protestant tradition was not well-critiqued. It was obvious to the Confessing Church that Christ, not the Fuhrer, was head of the Church. But the underlying idolatrous trends that culminated in the open idolatry were not completely understood and therefore not wholly able to be rebuked, but in some sense still had hold upon many of the resistant German Christians. For instance, Bonhoeffer dared not become a conscientious objector, since that was seen under Prussianism as treasonous, which would undermine even the weak support for the Confessing Church.

Bonhoeffer did not justify murder by appealing to God's Will. "When a man takes guilt upon himself in responsibility... he answers for it... Before other men he is justified by dire necessity; before himself he is acquitted by his conscience, but before God he hopes only for grace."

Redemptive violence, the bequest of Protestantism's founding rebellion, with its soldiers, tortures, murders and warfare, informed his theology, significantly diverging from Christ's: “The blood of martyrs might once again be demanded, but this blood, if we really have the courage and loyalty to shed it, will not be innocent, shining like that of the first witnesses for the faith. On our blood lies heavy guilt, the guilt of the unprofitable servant who is cast into outer darkness.”

To not realize the contradictions inherent in Bonhoeffer's decision, given his faith in Christ, is to make the same mistake some do now. So often we hear the military raised to our highest and most sacred calling, by the theological sleight of hand of comparing the sacrifice of Christ for us, to the soldier who gives up his own life on the battlefield.

However, let us be clear: Christ sought to kill no one, not even those who sought to kill Him: "Forgive them, for they know not what they do."

The soldier is indoctrinated to become a killing machine without reflexive conscience, normal conscience being inimicable to battlefield killing efficiency. He seeks to sacrifice the lives of the enemies he is told to hate, though he does not know them personally, and it is only through unfortunate circumstance, not his own will, that he inadvertently often is killed himself.

As General Patton observed, the duty of the soldier is to give the enemy the maximum chance to lay down his life for his country.

Obviously, this is contrary to the example of Christ, who laid down His life for His enemies.

ando

"He was executed, not for his faithfulness to Christ, ironically, but for
his failure to follow Christ in extremis."
That's your opinion. Others consider Bonhoeffer one of the greatest martyrs
of the 20th century. We can always justify our own wisdom. It is
absolutely ridiculous to say that he was executed by his failure to follow
Christ. That's like saying that Christ was executed for his failure to
follow Judaism. To worship pacifism is, in itself, idolatry, because it
negates the reality of fallen nature of humans. It's to say we should let
evil triumph. It allows for no courage. It's the easy way out.

danaames

I'm sure your experience with Orthodoxy in Europe is legitimate. As I said, there are problems. Every expression of Christianity has problems. I can only speak of Orthodoxy as I know it, in America- where there is from many voices a call for "personal holiness towards Jesus and commitment to His way", among ethnic Orthodox as well as converts.

Some USAmerican Protestants are xenophobic, intolerant and militaristic. Some Christian fundamentalists are anti-semitic and racist and have enabled lynchings in the past. One of the things Frank is doing is warning against shameless collaboration with fascism.

I'm not saying that Frank is right about everything. I am saying that he deserves to be taken seriously and his claims investigated rather than being written off. His honesty about his personal failings and willingness to admit he was wrong lend legitimacy to his concerns in my view.

May God increase the number of true Christians who are members of the Orthodox Church.

Dana

NMRod

Bonhoeffer, tellingly, never sought to justify morally what he attempted to do, but only asked God's forgiveness. Like us, he was sorely tempted to use means not consistent with his ends, yet felt compelled to do so by the severe nature of Nazism.

Gareth Higgins pointed me to a remarkable and revelatory compendium of facts from the era, "Human Smoke," by Nicholson Baker. What becomes clear from the historical record, compiled from first-person accounts, newspaper reports of the era, diaries of leaders and other unimpeachable primary sources, is the absolute failure of the efficacy argument for war and killing and the complicity of all sides in it. We have Churchill plotting the incineration of German civilians, using germ warfare to kill millions - all before any bombs dropped on London and long before the actual liquidation of the Jews began - which nothing was done about, until the final collapse of the Third Reich.

Bonhoeffer's assassination plot failed. As a result of the failure, and the source it came from - involvement of the Confessing Church, whose precepts for following Jesus and any power imbued within it were now seen as impotent as well as hypocritical, Hitler became both more convinced of his divine mission and protection as well as more intense in his paranoia and hatred. He redoubled the ferocity of his extermination efforts and the inhumanity of his orders. Far from being redemptive, Bonhoeffer's failure was the failure of redemptive violence. He was executed, not for his faithfulness to Christ, ironically, but for his failure to follow Christ in extremis.

So if it can save thousands or millions of lives, why not? The fact is, it did not - it caused the suffering and deaths to multiply, the feverish pace of the trains and ovens creating "Human Smoke" to accelerate.

This is precisely the same argument that some make for torture in this day and age. Supposedly, it is said to have saved hypothetical lives. But the fact is, in the years since it was instituted, our wars continue without end, the killing and maiming we and others do in continue without abating, largely civilians, and our own domestic freedoms erode at a frantic pace as we pursue means completely inconsistent with our stated aims. Thus, factually, those saved by torture remain hypothetical phantasms while the number of real victims heads into the uncountable, with no one sure what whirlwinds humanity will eventually reap.

NMRod

Interesting how we can misread one another. I've read Frank's books, from the beginning of his "collaboration" with his father, through his own writing and film career outside the evangelical closet. I met him back in Miami just before his break, at a pro-life rally, at which he was remarkably angry, loud and profane - the only one, in fact, who was. Maybe his rebellion is mostly against himself? I don't know. There's been so much deception, I can't be sure where the eventual endpoint would be.

I'm sorry you didn't find the description of Orthodoxy accurate, but I think it's partly a misunderstanding or an imprecise choice of words. At the risk of making it worse, let me explain. In Europe, the Orthodox Church has been a state church in countries that are more homeogenous ethnically. My own experience is with the Greek Orthodox Church. I would say that in America, the strong ethnic component is as you say, ranging from half to more. Some of those not ethnically connected are still familialy connected, however. In addition, I think the flexibility of belief you observe does have something to do with the concept that the church includes entire families, from birth. Such a form of catholicity must not make too heavy demands of purity, since inclusion is based on community as much as overt belief choices. It is not evangelical in that it seeks to make disciples and converts in the New Testament manner, but to minister to its base community. (How many times have I seen so many smoking outside the sanctuary, inside the church lobby. These are people for whom tradition and community, even ethnic community, mean so very much, while personal holiness towards Jesus and commitment to His way might not.)

Think of how Orthodoxy behaves in its mother nations. It is highly nationalistic - Russian Orthodoxy has traditionally and lately been xenophobic and intolerant, even getting state power to shut down what they see as competing religious activities. Its failures, as chronicled by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and other dissidents, were often those of shameless collaboration with totalitarianism. It has been strongly anti-semitic, the enabler of pogroms against the Jews.

Naturally, we can say that there are many true Christians who are members of the Orthodox Church.

danaames

NMRod,
I agree with you that militarism is no way to witness to the message of Jesus.

Having said that, it doesn't sound like you have read any of Frank's books or listened to his interviews. Search the archives at NPR for his interview with Terry Gross. It's probably the best summation of what he thinks.

His books about the military are in no way "glorifying" it. My understanding, on hearing him interviewed, is that he either ignored or looked down on the military, until his son volunteered for the Marines. Out of love for his son and wanting to understand that decision, he did some investigating. His books on the military are mainly stories of people who are serving, and their families. He does hold certain opinions, but it seems clear to me that he does not believe that war is good, or that the military or the state is the be-all/end-all of society.

Having recently become Orthodox, after much prayer, thought and research, I can attest that it is indeed conservative in terms of Trinitarian theology and social concerns. I was raised in a devout Roman Catholic family. I left Rome at age 20 because of what I read in the bible, and I was a serious and committed non-liturgical Protestant for 30 years, so I am familiar with all three "from the inside". Unfortunately, there are Orthodox people who view their ethnicity as more important than their Christianity. (I daresay there are some Protestants who do the same- see Conservapedia, Patriot's Bible, other examples new and old.) There are other problems too, and honest Orthodox people will admit to them.

But your other statements about Orthodoxy in this country are either wrong, or made in ignorance (not a judgment of your character, merely a statement that maybe you need to check your facts, perhaps talk to some Orthodox priests?...) I am not aware of any Orthodox group that is "an appendage of an ethnic state". Most certainly, no form of Orthodoxy in this country is in any way, shape or form a "state church". My church is of Russian heritage, but about half of us, both parish and jurisdiction, are not ethnically Russian.

I would be interested in knowing which of Frank's beliefs are essentially divergent from Orthodoxy. I find it neither rigid nor monolithic. Its statement of faith is the Nicene Creed. Its doctrine is expressed in the prayer and hymnody of worship, and dogma in the conclusions of the first seven ecumenical councils. All this would add up to about 20 volumes. There is canon law, but it is not the same kind of beast as Roman Catholic canon law, which is fairly rigid and contained in libraries of books. Some of Orthodox canon law has been amended, or sometimes even ignored when encountering the very different exigencies of life than when it was written up. Orthodoxy as a way of living the Christian life is quite flexible and practical- embracing paradox, tolerating ambiguity, and understanding of the weaknesses of human beings. If Frank is in good standing in his parish (which means he has to go to confession regularly), his priest will be well aware of his views and will be obliged to correct them if they are heterodox.

I own and have read about 95% of Francis Schaeffer's "Complete Works". They got me through some pretty dark times when churches I was involved with encouraged me to check my brains at the door. I have great affection and gratitude for the man and his life. I've also read about half of Frank's work. He's angry, but not really at his parents and family. "Crazy for God" made me appreciate Francis even more, for many reasons. I think Frank could temper the expression of his anger. At the same time, he's saying some important things. The fact that he makes people uncomfortable does not disqualify the content of his critique. I think for the most part he's correct in his analysis.

Dana Ames

brentw

Post secularism

Schaeffer claims that we need to go beyond the literal and close-ended worldviews of religious fundamentalism and atheism to embrace an open-ended worldview that believes the world was founded on love, that doubt is real, and that love is a chemistry and a revelation.

I offer a few notes, from a larger project, on his notion.

To his idea of religious and scientistic fundamentalism, I would add a third: liberal secularism. For in an imperious way it relegates the religious to a private sphere and declares that public reason and deliberation must not contaminate its “objective” worldview with religious drivel while it opens its doors wide to the naturalism of the scientists. It this wise, it is but a point of view that is just as close-ended as the above mentioned fundamentalisms. For if you were to ask a liberal to drop his objections to the use of religious logic and argument in the public square, he would say that such a move would destroy traditional liberalism as we know it.

When it comes to the matter of religion and the socio-political, it seems that only a post-secularism which excludes no one nor view is better situated to democratically adjudicate competing truth claims. A post-secularism would be a form of post-liberalism in that the intrinsic validity of any way of life and the polity would be best described as a vibrant modus vivendi between divergent points of view, a rollicking give and take where no argument or group would be excluded on grounds that it did not conform to some Unitarian rational logic. Its by-word would be a plurivocality not a univocality reflecting a radical pluralism that would reject efforts to close off the horizons of discussions in a vain attempt to make its world into a closed one where an enforced homogeneity would prevail. A post-secular world would reflect a political theology of difference.

Last, perhaps post secularists could rediscover their own form of religiosity in which they would come to see that their philosophy of immanence (their this-worldliness) just might be infused with a transcendence, where they would come to realize that under pain of a circularity, an infinite regress, or a mere saying-so, their immanence cannot be its own ground, where they would come to experience the aura of their world in a sort of profane illumination.

ando

Wasn't Lewis part of the World War II generation? I don't think it was off the wall to have wanted to defend his and other countries against the likes of Hitler. What do you think of Bonhoeffer and others wanting to assessinate Hitler? If it can save thousands or millions of lives, why not?