Religion the Whipping Boy
While religion has been the focus of ire for many over the centuries, the critique has become more focused, more organized, and more prolific over the past few years. Most interested in the topic–pro or con–are well aware of the critiques from without. Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris (known as "The Four Horsemen") as well as many others have caused quite a stir within both atheistic and theistic circles.
Some on the inside have also joined the critique. Frank Schaeffer has been taking some heat over the past few years for his rejection of the religious right in the United States, for his apparent rejection of conservative politics, and now, with the release of his latest book Crazy for God, for the rejection of his family and their mission. Frank’s late father, Francis Schaeffer is somewhat of an icon among evangelicals, revered by some, respected by most who have read him and many are boiling over the criticism Frank is dishing out.
Given the full court press of atheistic critics, the timing Schaeffer’s polemic may strike some as unfortunate even if one might be inclined to agree with him. Isn’t this a time when true believers–Frank hasn’t yet claimed he is anything but–should be circling the wagons to ward off the greater threat and deal with intramural conflicts later? Perhaps, but only if one is convinced that the attack is unjustified. Frank is not so convinced. Frank appears to be calling for a general house cleaning and the fact that the atheists have got the fundamentalists on the run only serves as a catalyst. There is, of course, a critical distinction between religion, theism, and fundamentalist (or evangelical) Christianity. Frank’s criticism is largely aimed last in this list even though many will see critiques coming from all quarters as essentially the same.
Black Hat or White Hat?
The response to Schaeffer’s latest book has been varied. Responses range from disparaging psychoanalysis to congratulatory respect. A friend, in personal correspondence, had few kind words for Frank using terms like "low life piece of trash", "deeply disturbed" and "half a man" to describe him (I can’t imagine what my friend would say if he actually knew Schaeffer or read any of his books). One reviewer, Gary DeMar, calls Schaeffer angry, disillusioned, immature, and impulsive. Rob Boston in an article entitled "Theocracy Rejected: Former Christian Right Leaders ‘Fess Up" notes the disenfranchisement people like Schaeffer, John Whitehead (see below), Cal Thomas and others have experienced since rejecting specific religious ideologies. He notes that Schaeffer has been accused of having "major emotional and spiritual problems" while Thomas had speaking engagements canceled and Whitehead’s Rutherford Institute is no longer being mentioned by name in Dobson’s publications.
Well-known evangelical author Os Guiness in an article for Christianity Today recently analyzed Frank’s latest book. Guiness’ evaluation carries plenty of credibility in that he lived with the Schaeffer’s at L’Abri for many years and considered Frank a good friend. Even in Guiness’ largely even-handed and balanced critique can he not avoid the tendency to blame some of Frank’s disenfranchisement on paternal angst, nepotism, and parental mistakes. But Guiness’ response only works to balance what he sees as some of the personal, factual information in the book and to essentially say that the book is the product of a spoiled, emotionally-wrought child of a genius. As a response to the larger goal Frank seems to have mind, Guiness offers little apart from some appropriate hand-wringing about the postmodernization of the church. (Part of Guiness’ rejoinder to Frank’s polemic is to claim that he doesn’t do a good enough job of making the proper historical distinction between fundamentalism and evangelicalism. While such a distinction may be relevant to some of those who read Christianity Today, most of Frank’s target audience who I suspect includes a growing number of disenfranchised church-goers and anti-religionists who barley see a distinction between protestant Christianity and Catholicism let alone fundamentalism and evangelicalism.)
Guiness shows up as a hell, fire, and brimstone intellectual in Jane Smiley’s review of Frank’s book for The Nation. Smiley, who calls Frank a "kindred spirit," amplifies Schaeffer’s critique leveraging the most vitriolic claims to emphasize the relative insanity of a place like L’Abri. She is sure to trot out all the big names Frank does: Dobson, Falwell, Robertson, Graham, and uses Frank’s words to promptly put them in the "crazy," irrelevant place. For Smiley, Schaeffer’s book just goes to prove what she and her Marxist husband had always known. This reaction is one I believe many will have and it is this reaction that worries some on the evangelical side of the fence. Bloggers like the skeptic Ed Brayton (founder of the widely read Darwinist blog, The Panda’s Thumb) have enjoyed the "outing" of the leaders of the religious right and have congratulated people like Whitehead and Schaeffer for helping promote a "transitional" ideology that will possibly reach the extremists more easily than the extreme Darwinists could.
John W. Whitehead, founder of the conservative Rutherford Institute, conducts a somewhat softball inverview with Schaeffer questioning him on some of the specifics in and the overall implications of his book. Unfortunately Whitehead chose to camp on more of the sensational rather than substantive elements of the book asking an inordinate number of questions about Francis Schaeffer’s alleged abusiveness and Frank’s sexual escapades. He asks only one question about Frank’s religious beliefs and his faith commitment. Still, Whitehead appears to view Frank as a fellow pilgrim who has left mother evangelicalism and has a story to tell about it.
Cui bono?
It would be easy and neat to say that the reaction to Schaeffer is falling cleanly along ideological lines: if you don’t like Christianity you love him, if you do like Christianity you hate him. But this is not at all the case. The reaction from those like Smiley is typical. But the reaction from some who might be inclined to defend conservative religion from Schaeffer has been to resonate with Schaeffer as a polemicist. While this writer would not be a Schaeffer apologist (I do find much of his book unnecessarily mean-spirited particularly of those who are unable to answer and some of his writing just plain poor like this ridiculous article), I think it would be unfortunate to either blindly reject or side with Schaeffer and miss the larger implications of his critique.
Guiness, one who is probably more inclined to be on the side that believes Christians should circle the wagons, bemoans the fact that Schaeffer’s book has, "given perverse comfort to those who already dislike the Christian faith, or evangelicalism, or conservatism." But many seem to be resonating with the general impulse of criticisms like Frank’s even if they don’t all agree on the details. DeMar, while generally inclined to disagree with Schaeffer, states, "Frank expresses his frustration with evangelicals and fundamentalists (especially) in Crazy for God. I share his frustrations." Certainly Whitehead would be in a category similar to Schaeffer’s in which he has come to reject the politicization if not the very fundamentals of fundamentalism yet wishes to remain a Christian.
A colleague of mine who actually spent 3 months at Schaeffer’s L’Abri and knew Franky( as he was then known), while calling him a "spoiled jerk," couldn’t help but agree with Schaeffer about many aspects of life at L’Abri and even of some of his larger criticisms of some of the facades present in certain forms of evangelicalism. A recent article in Christianity Today, has noted that L’Abri itself tends to be shifting from attracting more generalized philosophical skeptics to attracting "recovering" or disaffected evangelicals. The author, Molly Worthen, captures well, I think, the intellectual angst that many within the church are experiencing and what a radical book like Schaeffer’s is surfacing.
The fact is, many are becoming disenfranchised with the way the conservative movement has defined Christianity and the institutional church is undergoing a transition in the West. A recent study by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has indicated the rate of the "unaffiliated" is growing and the movement of adults between religious denominations is in a larger flux now than it has been in the past. As Worthen’s article calls out, many are finding the modern church inauthentic and highly institutional, politicized, and fake. This, of course, says little about the reality the church is supposed to represent. It is a polemic against the way church is done. It is here that Frank Schaeffer’s critique has the most importance.
I strongly believe the church in the West is at the very cusp of a major overhaul. It will be fueled by intellectual and emotional vacuum that has been created over the last 50 years and refined by the intellectual and psychological criticism that has begun and will continue to be leveled against it by both atheists and theists alike. Frank Schaeffer is not a Martin Luther by a long shot. But his general criticisms are finding a home with many in evangelicalism and at the end of the day the evangelical leadership may find the nail he’s using to be sharp indeed.
