RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

‘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.”

portrait-becky-garrisonBecky Garrison is featured in the documentaries The Ordinary Radicals and Nailin’ it to the Church.

Share or bookmark this post:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
advertisement


Comment Code of Conduct

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)

  • Eric77
    Something is odd about this man's writings. I will admit I have not read his books (or his father's books). I've only read what Sojourners had posted on this blog from time to time. I'm not sure what it is that troubles me.

    He seems similar to a few friends of mine who have converted to Catholicism from some branch of Protestantism. They didn't just go through a personal journey quietly and reach a humble conclusion and try to live out their new beliefs. For some reason or another they felt the need to trumpet their new-found truth and insist at almost every opportunity on telling their former Protestant brethren how they were on the wrong path and try to get them to look into Catholicism as well. I understand the desire to point people in the right direction if you think they're on the wrong path, but I wish there was more humility involved when the one doing the pointing was so recently on that same supposedly wrong path.

    From reading what Frank Schaeffer has written on this blog, I have a pretty good idea what he is rebelling against and who he doesn't like, but I don't have a very good idea what he is for.
  • krbg
    He told us what he is for: "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.”"

    This may seem too vague for you, but that is what he is in favor of: comfort with ambiguity. Acknowledgement that faith is still faith even when there is doubt. Finding truth in the paradoxes rather than in the abosolute.
  • striper11
    It's odd because a lot of it comes from a rebellious type of bitternes in which he has completely slandered his parents and shown them no respect whatsoever in the way he has spoken of them and their life's work and faith.

    And you are right about how he "trumpets" his new found faith all the while slamming and slandering anyone representative of the Protestantism he left behind. He turns it into a "we" vs. "them" mentality, which is one reason why I believe he aligns himself well on with Sojourners. Sojourners is really more and more advocating a "we" vs. "them" mentality, which is serving only to create divisiveness, animosity, and resentment among Christian brothers and sisters.

    I have read bits and pieces of Shaeffer's autobiography after coming across it by accident one day at the library. He truly has a rebellious proud-to-be-a-Prodigal-Son type of attitude in which he just completely slams his parents, esp. his father. Personally, I was disgusted with his whole attitude.
  • canucklehead
    you use remarkably strong language to pass judgment on someone whose work you, self-admittedly, have only read "bits and pieces" of; as for your comment that "he has completely slandered his parents and shown them no respect whatsoever," that is patently false and reminiscent of someone who buys into the Focus on the Family "Mom and Dad can do no wrong" view of reality
  • Mennoman
    Frank Schaeffer is a lightening rod, especially for those who hold closely to the beliefs of his father and his father's cohorts. His book "Crazy for God" is a great read-- he lays bare what was going on in the evangelical movement in the 70s and early 80s. If he incurs stinging criticism, it is because he has touched a raw nerve in the evangelical community.
  • SisterMarie
    Concur. I read "Crazy for God" several weeks ago. One of the things that I remember was his account of an occassion in which he and his father appeared on Reverend Pat Robertson's 700 Club.

    I don't believe that Frank slandered his parents in the book. Rather, he describes how even his dad underwent some changes and how he often had to walk a fine line to retain the support that he needed.
  • kansasmennonite
    I'll go and see if our local library has the book. Sounds like an interesting read.
  • 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.
  • 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
    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.
  • squeaky
    I've seen it the other way around, too. I have several friends who came out of Catholicism into Pentacostalism, and they have acted the same way.

    I suppose it is a natural human reaction to coming out of a belief system that we saw as oppressive in our experience, into a belief system where we find relative freedom or "truth". I struggle with it myself.
  • irish_annie
    well said, eric.

    frankie, once in one ditch (religious right), has now overcorrected, causing him to veer into the other ditch (liturgical left). his theory-ology has changed, but his "my way is the only way" fundamentalism remains the same. stuck in the old "us vs them" paradigm, the loving oneness that we, as christians, need manifest to a hurting world still escapes him. it remains that to attack others - any others - is to gnaw off our own arm.
  • striper111
    Frank has an extreme hatred for the "religious right" (and Republicans). In everything I have ever read by him (including his interviews), he speaks with massive amounts of hatred. He mocks others (even his own parents), and he possesses a "we are better than them" and "they are idiots" mentality.

    He always comes across as someone with an "axe to grind." I see no fruit of the Spirit in him, so while he claims to know God, he certainly does not act loving, kind, humble, or Christlike.

    I've always had a very bad impression of him after reading most of his autobiography, esp. with the way he speaks of his parents, who he basically claims were hypocrites. He speaks of them in a very disrespectful, ungrateful manner, and also sounds like a spoiled brat throughout his description of his childhood and parents. For that alone, I was fairly disgusted with him.

    Os Guiness, once a close friend of Frank's and also of his parents, wrote an article called "Fathers and Sons" where he wrote, "no critic or enemy of Francis Schaeffer has done more damage to his life's work than his son Frank." He also said, "It pains me to say that his portrait [of his parents] is cruel, distorted, and self-serving."

    I agree and have very little respect for this man. He is no different than someone like Keith Olbermann, in which he is fiercly liberal and shows strong desdain and hate for those Christians who are not.
  • irish_annie
    yes. sadly, in our polarized society, it is the haters from both sides who have been the most vocal, who even go so far as to claim to speak for the rest of us. it is past time for people of good will to rise up and proclaim, not only in word, but in deed, the oneness, the brotherhood of us all. a 'unity' rooted in and demanding uniformity is fragile and false. as Jesus asked (my para), "if you only love folks who are just like you, what's so extraordinary about that?!" selah.
  • ftm0780
    This is a provocative post. I agree with Schaeffer that there are two fundamentalisms in this country - religious and atheistic - and that it's imperative to find a middle way. I myself grew up in a fundamentalist church, fled to atheism in college as a way to reject my upbringing, and have now rediscovered the Christian faith in a very sincere way.

    Question for discussion, which is along the lines of the previous comment from Eric77: for those who have rescued their faith and found a middle way, how do we prevent it from hardening into just another self-righteous fundamentalism? As Schaeffer says, one day we will realize "that we are spiritual beings and animals." Once we reach this understanding, what happens? Does self-understanding cease to evolve? Will we just be trapped in another fundamentalist worldview?
  • jonabark
    The main trap he is pointing out is not a faithful relationship to eternal truth/God/ a unifying spiritual oneness.... but the destructive idea that this truth is absolute, literal, can be clearly and unequivocally known and that this truth reveals an absolute and clearly marked division between the saved and lost , the infidel and the believer.

    I think there are several more than 2 fundamentalisms: capitalism, certain brands of Islam, racism, military triumphalism, patriotism, communism, political partyism, and professional sports to name a few.

    I think Jesus's call to pray in secret and to avoid the counsel of scribes and Pharisees points to the importance of a private, open-minded, open-hearted spirituality. The community he started was marked by sharing food , by healing love, and by valuing every member as a source of wisdom and leadership.

    The only thing fundamentalists have to lose is fear, self righteous cultural bias, war and any kind of eternal hell.
  • He seems similar to a few friends of mine who have converted to Catholicism from some branch of Protestantism.

    I understand that he is now Orthodox.
  • LindaWa
    This may be slightly off topic but in a way it isn't. I would be interested in your comments.

    An Open Letter to the Church and Ministers - A Home Missions Project

    http://tinyurl.com/yzguqzr

    I think it can be safely said that an effective church and society, is an informed one.
  • RadicalChristianLibrarian
    Just had a chance to take a look at your link. We do tend to kick our wounded, don't we?

    Have you heard of Dr. Jill Levenson? She is an expert in the field of sex offenses/sex offenders, a researcher and a clinician. Her scholarship may help your ministry.

    http://www.lynn.edu/about-lynn/campus-directory...

    Take a look at her CV, located at the bottom of her page- should provide you with some good scholarly sources.
  • LindaWa
    Yes, I'm very familiar with Jill Levensen and have a lot of her relevant research.

    Thanks for the input, it's greatly appreciated.
  • letjusticerolldown
    I am perfectly fine with F Schaeffer being on a sojourn--moving from where he was to somewhere new. I hope I would be able to say the same about my own life.

    I wish he would move beyond the apparent need to bash those who are at the last point on the sojourn he just decided to leave--so that those he shares life's journey with now do not face the prospect that in ten years he will be making a living by cutting them to shreds and apologizing to others he has cut down in the past.

    This does not mean he does not have helpful and worthwhile insight. Franky--your journey does not match that of your mother and father. Who in your family do you believe could most openly journey, hand-in-hand, with the rest of the family--without being derogatory towards the others' journeys?? I'm not suggesting an answer. I am curious. I just don't get how we ever learn to journey together and contribute what we each need to contribute and use language as you use it.
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertise here
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here


HOME | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | TAKE ACTION | MAGAZINE  
SOJOMAIL | BLOGS | MEDIA | EVENTS | RESOURCES | ABOUT US  
Sojourners | 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20010  
Phone 202.328.8842 | Fax 202.328.8757 | sojourners@sojo.net  
Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2008