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

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.

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.

I'd like to hope that some of us who are connected to full-time ministry manage, by God's grace, to remain real, authentic and genuine. But it is a struggle against expectations within and without.

To be honest about your struggles and doubts, to point out your own flaws and sin and to admit that you are quite comfortable with some of them is to open yourself up to hurt, ridicule, anger and even the loss of your job in some cases. Yet it is also a way to help those who feel as if they must have missed the day where perfection and polish were handed out to the righteous. (I suspect this is most of us at some point.)

And moreover, it is a wonderful opportunity to point people back to the God of mercy who has a history of using flawed people such as Moses and David to accomplish His work on earth. Isn't it a wonderful thing that God can use and love sinners, like all of us.

As a fledgling writer, I find myself, sometimes intentionally, pushing against the boundaries of the CBA. In my writing and my personal life as a pastor's spouse, I have attempted to remain real, to admit my questions, my doubts and my commitment to stick it out with God even when my feelings would have me do otherwise. To do otherwise seems to me that it places unrealistic expectations on 'regular' believers to pretend to be something they are not, encouraging them to hide problems rather than face them and to shy away from the very kinds of relationships with God and each other that help us grow to be more like Christ.

But the reality is, it is just hard to do. Some days it is just easier to paste on the right face and the right words than to take the risk.

Frank arguments and polemics have some accuracy, insofar as they reflect some people's duplicity and perhaps the contradictory things we all believe that cause our faith and the exercise of it to be less than perfect.

Yet, the misgivings I have about listening too hard to Frank's adversarial accusations (even if clothed as personal confessions, he implicates others as co-conspirators) is that I start to want the public defender in Stephen Vincent Benet's "The Devil and Daniel Webster."

He definitely has worthwhile insights and a unique perspective. I read "Crazy for God" and I understand that many of his parents' friends found it too harsh. My impression was that Frank Jr. feels guilty about his own role in creating the interweaving of Christianity and politics, about his role in creating the "religious right" as we know it today, and involving Frank Sr. in this interweaving, too.

If one writes a book about growing up in a fundamentalist family, I imagine that an honest portrayal may seem harsh or derogatory at some points. He definitely has a problem with fundamentalism, but I found the portrayal of his family, on balance, to be that of a loving, flawed family. Maybe I have to read it again, but it didn't strike me as a bash-fest or as derogatory. Just honest, from where he stood. Actually if I wrote a book about growing up in my own family, and I was completely honest about how I felt about certain events, I imagine people would think I was being really harsh and derogatory.

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 a like 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.

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.

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.

I think you might need to read it again. Of course, Frank "owns" his own memories and it's not possible for outsiders to be able to say much that's verifiable about someone who can claim special knowledge the rest of us don't have. But friends and relatives who were there didn't find it just "too harsh" but inaccurate.As I recall, "Crazy for God" ended with what was basically a statement of disbelief, though professing love for the parents who believed an insane religion and were warped by it.

Going back to the article and the "personality cults" that are discussed, which is a cultural issue not unique to Christians. President Bush is either the messiah or the anti-Christ. President Obama is either the messiah or the anti-Christ. Normal people are built up or torn down according to one's particular points of view. We love or hate one another based upon false notions, rather than viewing and receiving one another as fundamentally flawed human beings. There is no acceptance or love on one hand, no acknowledgment of flaws on the other.

This cult of personality is promoted and encouraged by big business, which, as you point out, unfortunately includes evangelical Christianity.

"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."

The essence of faith always includes doubt or it would be certainty and not faith. However, I see this repeatedly that it is seen as monstrous or evil to believe a truth that says you must believe in Christ to be saved and the adjunct "in" or "out" position. This is judgementally IMHO stated to be an immoral arrogant position. The position is either true or not. If it is true, one could argue that it is most moral to believe it and propogate that belief. If it is not true (and I believe that it is) I agree with Paul that our faith is worthless and we are to be pitied. Schaeffer seems to be very certain about truth when he accuses fundamentalist of blashpemy against God.

I'd like to hope that some of us who are connected to full-time ministry manage, by God's grace, to remain real, authentic and genuine. But it is a struggle against expectations within and without.

To be honest about your struggles and doubts, to point out your own flaws and sin and to admit that you are quite comfortable with some of them is to open yourself up to hurt, ridicule, anger and even the loss of your job in some cases. Yet it is also a way to help those who feel as if they must have missed the day where perfection and polish were handed out to the righteous. (I suspect this is most of us at some point.)

And moreover, it is a wonderful opportunity to point people back to the God of mercy who has a history of using flawed people such as Moses and David to accomplish His work on earth. Isn't it a wonderful thing that God can use and love sinners, like all of us.

As a fledgling writer, I find myself, sometimes intentionally, pushing against the boundaries of the CBA. In my writing and my personal life as a pastor's spouse, I have attempted to remain real, to admit my questions, my doubts and my commitment to stick it out with God even when my feelings would have me do otherwise. To do otherwise seems to me that it places unrealistic expectations on 'regular' believers to pretend to be something they are not, encouraging them to hide problems rather than face them and to shy away from the very kinds of relationships with God and each other that help us grow to be more like Christ.

But the reality is, it is just hard to do. Some days it is just easier to paste on the right face and the right words than to take the risk.

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.

Frank arguments and polemics have some accuracy, insofar as they reflect some people's duplicity and perhaps the contradictory things we all believe that cause our faith and the exercise of it to be less than perfect.

Yet, the misgivings I have about listening too hard to Frank's adversarial accusations (even if clothed as personal confessions, he implicates others as co-conspirators) is that I start to want the public defender in Stephen Vincent Benet's "The Devil and Daniel Webster."

He definitely has worthwhile insights and a unique perspective. I read "Crazy for God" and I understand that many of his parents' friends found it too harsh. My impression was that Frank Jr. feels guilty about his own role in creating the interweaving of Christianity and politics, about his role in creating the "religious right" as we know it today, and involving Frank Sr. in this interweaving, too.

If one writes a book about growing up in a fundamentalist family, I imagine that an honest portrayal may seem harsh or derogatory at some points. He definitely has a problem with fundamentalism, but I found the portrayal of his family, on balance, to be that of a loving, flawed family. Maybe I have to read it again, but it didn't strike me as a bash-fest or as derogatory. Just honest, from where he stood. Actually if I wrote a book about growing up in my own family, and I was completely honest about how I felt about certain events, I imagine people would think I was being really harsh and derogatory.

Bad and worse?

I think you might need to read it again. Of course, Frank "owns" his own memories and it's not possible for outsiders to be able to say much that's verifiable about someone who can claim special knowledge the rest of us don't have. But friends and relatives who were there didn't find it just "too harsh" but inaccurate.As I recall, "Crazy for God" ended with what was basically a statement of disbelief, though professing love for the parents who believed an insane religion and were warped by it.

Actually when it was "small business" - before being slurped up by big media companies like Murdoch's - it was still rather confining. For instance, Dostoyevsky wasn't classed as a Christian writer, nor would Walker Percy be - though they are.

If anything, the reigns are now looser than they were, in order to appeal to an even wider audience - but not in terms of loosing artists who are genuinely Christian but are quite consciously artists not writing to a formula.

As mentioned, Frank Schaeffer wrote a book aimed at evangelicals and published by an evangelical publisher, addressing just this failing, titled "Addicted to Mediocrity" over two decades ago.

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.

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.

But Frank IS a Constantinian; he even wrote a book glorifying the military and war after leaving the evangelical faith. In this he has substantially distanced himself from his father's much more moderate position and allied himself with militaristic nationalism.

Additionally, Orthodoxy is at least as rigid in its belief systems as Catholicism; we can say it is much less evangelical than either Protestantism or Catholicism, and generally even more conservative. Mostly, the Orthodox Church exists as an appendage of ethnic states or within ethnic enclaves in North America, such as Greek or Russian communities. As a state church, it has always been supportive of its own nationalistic wars.

Franky's own expressed faith substantially diverges from Orthodoxy on essential points. Orthodoxy is not some sort of post-evangelical unitarianism at all. Like lapsed or cafeteria Catholics, those who hold few of the Orthodox Church's positions are not barred from attending, but they are not the arbiters of its faith statement, either.

You are right that Anabaptists were murdered by both Catholics and Protestants - not to mention the Orthodox; Anabaptists at least have remained substantially true to Jesus' teaching by rejecting the Constantinian justifications for bloodshed that were actually made worse by the Reformation and violent Protestantism.

Protestantism allied itself with rebellious local rulers who did not want to submit politically to Rome as a means to achieving its success. These rulers used this rebellious religion as a means for justifying their own militaristic means and ends, and the consequence for us was to bind Protestant religion and the emerging nation-state together, as we find it even in an America where church and state are supposedly separated.

I believe the Anabaptist way would have better suited Franky if his motivations are as you say - to leave such a primitive, misguided and dangerous faith behind while following Jesus.

First, you are wrong that Frank Schaeffer has left the faith or that he urges others to leave their faith. He is a practicing member of Orthodox faith, one of the largest branches of Christianity. He simply refuses to accept absolutist claims by any faith or by any charismatic individual. Some may think following Jesus teachings or a Christian faith requires the acceptance of a set of fundamental theological propositions but many do not. Frank has seen first hand the very literal destructiveness to human lives which stemmed from the fundamentalism his father endorsed. It was made very clear in an interview he did with Terry Gross that he regards his father with love and respect, but he completely disagrees with that theology. There is much more to his disagreement than personal involvement with the rise of the Christian right. Every generation since Constantine has produced large scale bloodshed and oppression which has been justified by some kind of Christian theology: the Catholic protestant wars, inquisition, persecution of Huguenots or Anabaptists, mass killings of jews, invading and colonizing the rest (non European) of the world.... This history and similar histories of communist, capitalist and Islamism, and yes democratist versions of fundamentalism all speak of a common root ideology, a common literalism that turns all the victims into the necessary cost of pursuing the truth and establishing the Kingdom . Victims become heretics, satanic, heathens, greedy capitalists, terrorists, communists, perverts, primitive, etc..

He sees these ideas as primitive, misguided, and very dangerous. He does not believe they a necessary to a disciplined and much needed spirituality.

"The Memory of the Christian People" by Edouard Hoornaert provides an excellent treatment of the kind of oral history that Frank offers in "Crazy for God." Who is anybody who wasn't present at the time to say that his portrayal of his parents is too this, too that, too disrespectful, etc. Heck, by that criteria, we'd have to cut most of the Pentateuch out - Abraham (sends his wife to sleep w/ pagans to spare his own neck) Rebekkah and Isaac (a real Focus on the Family couple if ever there was one, what with pitting the kids one against the other, et al), Jacob, shyster par excellent - kinda puts a new spin on our pious "The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" doesn't it? Accordingly, was it possible for Francis Schaeffer to be all and worse that Frank portrays him to be and still be used by God? With all due respect, the same Old Testament reveals that God has used jackasses before to get his work done, no?

Simply acknowledging their sojourns are not identical and there might be value in a shared journey rather than a series of 'rebellions' against others on the path.