Frank Schaeffer's "Crazy for God"

It's interesting that you pointed to this as the apocalyptic and separatist views of the US that Schaeffer rejects are very characteristic of the views expressed on this blog.

We all live and we all grow.

I'm not sure what I think about a son revealing the fact that his father was hot-tempered and abusive. Personally, I only talk about family business when it is with a close friend/priest and I need someone to talk to. That said, it is a memoir...

Frankly, some of the ways he describes the religious right reminds me of the tendencies of some conservative Catholics. Witness the promotion of the movie Therese a couple of years ago and now Bella. I've seen the former, and I was thoroughly got embarassed sitting in the movie theater. Bella seems to be better, but I noticed that with Therese the writers were telling Barb Nicolosi that she didn't have faith, and now she is demon possessed. Wow, what a joke! It seems to me to betray some of our weaknesses. On a broader political scale, I think it is important that Catholicism (or any other religion) is not a cause (or "convenient ideology", as Ratzinger put it), and is much less a political cause. It is a faith, which transfers into a way of life. Quite frankly, this is the reason, given my stage in life, that I would much rather listen to individuals such as Frs. Groeschel or Corapi than the high profile, arm chair apologists.

Rod--a couple of weeks ago you posted a story about some people moving out to a traditionalist monastery in Oklahoma, and I expressed a lot of skepticism toward laymen doing such a thing. What I have just said underscores such skepticism. I think that sometimes shutting oneself often leads to self-righteousness, and a sort of us against them mentality in the absolute sense.

My impression is that Francis Schaeffer wasn't pleased with the beast he helped create (the Religious Right).

It's interesting that you pointed to this as the apocalyptic and separatist views of the US that Schaeffer rejects are very characteristic of the views expressed on this blog.

We all live and we all grow.

That's why I chose them. I don't necessarily agree with Schaeffer's take, of course, though he does make me think critically about my own views. I want to be open to the possibility that I am too severe in my critique, and to make adjustments accordingly.

quote: "In other words, the Religious Right was as negative and anti-American as anybody I ever talked to on the Left."

I grew up as an Evangelical (Dobson was a big influence on my parents), and I don't think this is the case at all. Indeed, I would argue that one of the Religious Right's biggest flaws is that it wraps itself in the American flag and mixes religious piety with patriotism. For example, it is not uncommon to see American flags flown outside Evangelical churches or placed inside their sanctuaries. In addition, they often have "patriotic services" on the Fourth of July and Memorial Day. It's one thing to honor military service or give thanks we live in a free country, but in my experience these services go way overboard and it's often hard to say where worship of God and love of country part ways in them. Ironically, most Evangelicals wouldn't dream of celebrating any church holiday besides Christmas and Easter (other days like Ascension or Pentecost are too Catholic), but they make a big deal out of the Fourth of July.
It's also worth pointing out that the Religious Right tends to believe a lot of half-truths about American History. They tend to say that America was founded as a "christian nation" and that the founding fathers were all pious christians. Of course, some of the founding fathers were devout christians and as a group they weren't proto-PC ACLU types with regard to public expressions of religion. But many of them were Enlightenment deists types and unitarians and wouldn't exactly fit in at a Southern Baptist church.
It's true that the Religious Right strongly criticizes America for the immorality they see in American society (and I generally agree with much of their criticism). But I don't see them as the other side of the coin to the far Left's hatred of the United States. If anything, the Religious Right is darn near idolatrous with its mixture of religion and patriotism.

rr

Rod,
I have read some interviews that Franky has given, and read some articles on his growing up. I was raised neo-evangellical (Dobson, Falwell), so I understand your wife being troubled. At the end of the day, Francis and Edith Schaeffer were human beings, in desparate need of the Grace and Mercy of Jesus, as all of us are.

I have read several of Francis Schaeffer's works. He really is quite brilliant. He is theologially Reformed, except for escatology. As he is credited with much of the beginings of the modern religous right movement, his adherence to pre mil escatology is part of the problem.

My escatology = knowing neither the day nor the hour.

Joe,

I agree with your additions regarding corporate greed (not to mention American consumerism), war, and Israel. I find some of the extreme Dispensationalist views of Israel (John Hagee, etc.) to be heretical as well because they make nonsense of the new covenant.
Evangelicalism is problematic for a number of reasons. But I wouldn't go so far as to call it a false American cult (that honor goes to the Mormons and JWs). Instead, I would argue that most Evangelicals are, as Catholics would say, "invincibly ignorant" to the theological errors of their tradition. Most Evangelicals, including many of my own family members, don't know or understand any other form of Christianity but their own. They don't know much about the Reformation (conservative Lutheranism for example is alien to them), much less Catholicism or Orthodox, so I think ignorance is an important factor.

rr

Don said:

"Gil--the problem is that we went in there and upset the balance of power, specifically setting in action a chain of events that has allowed for the mass displacement of Christian minorities."

>>>>>>>>>>>>

The cleansing of non-muslims has been going on for a very long time in many parts of the islamic world. Bush’s war may have been the catalyst for this particular episode, but it’s not accurate to place all the blame on Bush without also acknowlegding the role that traditional Islamic theology plays in justifying such actions. For a lot of these people (islamic supremacists), Islam dictates the terms of the relationship between muslims and unbelievers, NOT President Bush.

So much for 'Honor your father and mother.'

Almost all of Schaeffer's literary output has been at the expense of his parents.

And I love him casting judgement on a phalanx of 'right-wingers' based on twenty year old memories of a young and passionate artist. So much for extending any hospitable benefit of the doubt.

He may be well-intentioned in his own mind, but his ongoing rehabilitation from his parents makes him seem like nothing as much as a jerk.

If he was not Greek Orthodox, I doubt he would find favor here.

Don said:

"Give Muslims extremists "freedom"--and this is what you get."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Sure can't argue with that - and it's just as true in the "west" as it is in Iraq . . .

"Don said:

"Give Muslims extremists "freedom"--and this is what you get."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Sure can't argue with that - and it's just as true in the "west" as it is in Iraq . . . "

We're not talking about the west--we're talking about Iraq or, more aptly put, about what has been unleashed in Iraq because of the actions of Bush and the Congress.

Neo-conservatives can go around crowing all they want, defending Bush all they want, and rallying around the party all they want, but Frank is correct, the war has only made Islamic radicalism a bigger problem for the United States, and in turn displaced over three quarters of an ancient Eastern christian population.

People on this blog who defend Bush can split hairs about moral culpability all night long, but the result of the Iraq War is Bush's legacy. And that pitiful legacy will take the rest of the conservative movement down the toilet with it (and I have a stake in that).

"The cleansing of non-muslims has been going on for a very long time in many parts of the islamic world. Bush’s war may have been the catalyst for this particular episode, but it’s not accurate to place all the blame on Bush without also acknowlegding the role that traditional Islamic theology plays in justifying such actions. For a lot of these people (islamic supremacists), Islam dictates the terms of the relationship between muslims and unbelievers, NOT President Bush."

Uh, call me crazy, but Iraq was a Muslim country where, prior to the Iraq war, Christians were not persecuted (wasn't Saddam's foreign minister and, later, deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz a Christian?). And "traditional Islamic theology" is quite explicit about Christians and Jews (and to a certain extent Zoroastrians) as "People of the Book" who were granted legal status under Muslim rule. To be sure, they were politically second-class citizens, but this was progressive for its time. After all, non-Christians in Europe had absolutely no legal status at the time, by contrast. There are and always have been Christians everywhere in the Muslim world (in Syria, among the Palestinians, and so on). This is not to deny violence against religious minorities over the course of Islam's more than 1300 year history ~ but such violence is grossly over-stated (and mis-stated) by many American conservatives. The Muslim conquest of Central Asia, for example, did not result in forced conversion. In fact, the overwhelmingly Buddhist population became overwhelmingly Muslim only beginning with the generation following the conquest - and not as a result of violence specifically aimed at conversion.

And, on a related note, to suggest that violence against religious minorities is an "aberration" in Christianity over the course of its 2000 year history is to display a remarkable ignorance of Christian history (or European history more broadly). That is not to say that violence characterizes Christianity. It is only to suggest that, as in the case of Islam above, we should be very careful to paint Christian and Islamic communities (and I emphasize the plural here) and their histories with single, broad brush-strokes.

Besides, in the case of Islam, it makes more sense to emphasize those elements of "traditional Islamic theology" that are compatible with or amenable to the values that make possible harmonious living in a pluralistic and complex world, thereby isolating extremists as much as possible. Anyone who thinks this impossible knows nothing of Islam.

>he's genetically prone to megalomania, so we forgive him for that.

This does make it all click. Thanks!

"Uh, call me crazy, but Iraq was a Muslim country where, prior to the Iraq war, Christians were not persecuted (wasn't Saddam's foreign minister and, later, deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz a Christian?). And "traditional Islamic theology" is quite explicit about Christians and Jews (and to a certain extent Zoroastrians) as "People of the Book" who were granted legal status under Muslim rule. To be sure, they were politically second-class citizens, but this was progressive for its time."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

There's more to the story, no doubt, but it seems to me that a good portion of the recent exodus is, in reality, a response to efforts by some muslims to RE-IMPOSE true dhimmi status on non-muslim communities after a period of historic abeyance under some largely secular governments (like Iraq's former government, as you point out). . . For instance, a muslim committed to islamic government might ask, "have the kuffir ceased all proselytizing? Have they adopted all appropriate islamic norms regarding dress and conduct? Have they accepted Islamic law and do they feel themselves properly subdued by it? Are they paying protection money (jizyah) to the local islamic authorities in exchange for their security?" On that score, I’ll bet dollars to doughnuts many of these communities received a letter or some other "official" message asking them to either convert or to begin paying such a tax to some local islamist group before the threats/kidnappings/killings began in earnest. Look up Q 9:29 - it’s laid out in detail there and elsewhere. Those sorts of threats are VERY difficult to counter, even if the larger muslim community was completely committed to stopping it (which may, or may NOT, be the case depending on the region.)

And yes! Your absolutely right, it's possible to manage life as a dhimmi, if your lucky enough to be a person of the book*, and by the standards of the 7th century or even the 15th, it really isn't half bad, but it's often MUCH easier to simply convert or to leave, especially these days. And, in truth, that's what dhimmitude is designed to do, isn't it? Grind down a non-muslim population through political exclusion, restrictions on religious activities, persecution through blasphemy laws, population loss though marital laws which often give muslim males access to multiple kuffir women while restricting the marital rights of muslim women and infidel men (though, I believe there were probably times when some islamic government or other was making so much money off their dhimmis that they really weren't motivated to convert them). Ask pretty much any Copt - they can explain how the whole thing works.

Anyway, it's a process that usually takes its toll over generations - though, at present, we seem to be in a particularly acute period. (Maybe a bit like a 'market correction' following last century's fevered wave of secularisation. . . ? Who knows.)

*For those who are NOT fortuneate enough to be considered "people of the book," the reality of islamic rule can be truly awful. Here's an article by Paul Marshall of the Week Standard describing recent actions by the Iranian regime aimed at systematically WIPING OUT the Bahais, (all in accordance with traditional islamic law, of course):

"Murder with Impunity"

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/284idyfu.asp

" . . . The regime continued to persecute the Baha'is, as well as other religious minorities, and parts of this plan were carried out--including their exclusion from universities and many jobs. But now the government's program has entered a more intensive and systematic phase. An October 29, 2005, confidential letter sent on Khamenei's instructions by Major General Hossein Firuzabadi, chairman of the Command Headquarters of the Armed Forces, ordered the Ministry of Information, the Revolutionary Guard, and the Police Force to "acquire a comprehensive and complete report" to identify all Baha'is.

On August 19, 2006, Mohammad-Reza Mavvalizadeh, director of the Ministry of the Interior's Political Office, ordered provincial governors' security officers to monitor Baha'i "social activities" and sent out a questionnaire to collect details of Baha'i incomes and occupations, and even burial locations. At about the same time, referring to the 1991 plan, Asghar Zari'i, director general of the Ministry of Science, Research and Technology's Central Security Office, ordered 81 universities to expel any Baha'i students and report back to confirm that they had done so. . . .

Because Baha'is are held, as apostates, to be religiously unclean, they were also to be banned from "catering at reception halls," restaurants and cafes, grocery stores, pastry, coffee, and kebab shops, and ice cream parlors. Finally, for reasons unclear, they must be excluded from "stamp making," "childcare," and "real estate," as well as cultural areas.

Baha'is are under other pressures. . .Banks are closing their accounts and refusing loans. This summer in Kermanshah, according to an account on news.bahai.org, "a 70-year-old man was sentenced to 70 lashes and a year in prison for 'propagating and spreading Bahaism and the defamation of the pure Imams.' In Mazandaran, a court has once again ruled against three women and a man who are charged with 'propagation on behalf of an organization which is anti-Islamic.'" On September 9 and 10, the government bulldozed one of their cemeteries near Isfahan, while in Yazd in July another was extensively damaged by earth-moving equipment. . . .

. . .

But Iran's growing systematic campaign against Baha'is suggests something more. These regulations and restrictions are not haphazard but are systematically structured and, as such, are remarkably reminiscent of the Nazi Nuremberg Laws imposed against Jews in the 1930s. They are steps toward the destruction of a religious community, and they require the international condemnation and pressure that the Nuremberg Laws did not receive."

_______________

Yes, dhimmitude does have its advantages. Too bad the Bahai don't qualify.

The degree of violence in the history of religions is not that relevant to the persecution of Christian minorities, at least in the context of the present time. I do think that in the name of "equality", people uncritically assume or conclude that if, for instance, Islam is violent, then well, Christianity is just as much so.

Certainly all or at least most influential organizations, institutions, or structures have their faults and some violence, if they exist for any length of time.

The article Lynn posted makes a good point--the Crusades (at least the general concept of the Crusades) were in response to centuries of unprovoked Muslim aggression against Christian Europe. The entire Eastern empire had been sacked, and the Moors had, at varying points, conquered at least half and sometimes most of Spain (they even went up into France and Austria at one point). It is a common mistake to assume that the Crusades were representative unprovoked aggression. In large part, they were a failed venture.

Interesting review of the book by Jane Smiley in THE NATION:

www.thenation.com/doc/20071015/smiley

I've read to chapter 40 of Crazy for God, and actually came online looking to see what other Christians are saying about it.
Most of the comments here are typical: fights about Christians and Muslims, etc...
Unlike "Betty Carter" who wrote a review of the book, I am an unknown reader of the book, of all Frank's books.
I agree with her take on it though. I guess I missed out on the honor code that says you must never speak ill of your parents. Oh, lemme guess, that is the 5th commandment.
Well ok, good, then all you have to do is write off Frank and this book by quoting the 5th commandment, saying he doesn't obey it, thus he and the book are bad.
Fine for you.
I find it very interesting, as I do many people's works/books, who are honest and funny.
I don't see what he has said that is so damaging to his parents anyway. So Edith was a bit (or way) over the top in a Martha Stewart kind of way. And Francis was overly absorbed with his work. And oh my, yelled or threw a pot, got mad, was rude to Edith. I think it's *funny* to hear about his childhood, ESPECIALLY at L'Abri. I mean, c'mon, wouldn't you EXPECT some of the kinds of things to happen that he talks about, at some chalet in the 60s and 70s in Switzerland, filled with "seekers" and donors and helpers and extended family, etc...?
What great chapters on Frank's experience at Great Walstead, one of the few schools he ever actually attended. And how he met Genie...it's a great book, if you enjoy listening to other people's stories.

Well, I just finished actually reading the book and many, many reviews, which I researched online after reading the book. Wanted to read what others were saying about the book. I was troubled by the angry tone, but anger toward parental failure I understand, having been nursed at the breast of this Off-Spring Tells-All-Ala-Oprah-or-Springer American culture. Despite Schaeffer’s European upbringing and alleged ignorance of all things American until he and Genie moved to the north east, he certainly fell right into that badly American habit. The next matter which troubled me was the self-righteousness: for those he utterly disdains, he is scathing and brutal. For his own failures, he is magnanimously understated, choosing to describe his failures and flaws as mere matters to his discredit.

He mis-remembers the conservative Christian evangelical culture. It is not, never has been, anti-American. In point of fact, the opposite is true. Foreign missionaries have often marveled to me at the fervent nationalism present in evangelical circles and speak of it as a discredit to the American Evangelical Christian. As an aside, Evangelicals believe they fight for the very soul and life of America’s future, for the underlying purpose of the gospel: if America falls to the left, then the very ability of the Christians to live out the gospel, whether in the evangelical context or liturgical context is lost. But, I digress.

Another point which troubled me occurred after I read the book and after I perused the internet. In the between time of reading the book and sitting down to the internet, I wrestled with his book, his attitude and the defeatist existentialism inherent in the book’s tone. Is he just an angry son or is he sincerely wrestling with deeper issues, I wondered to myself? However, once in the realm of the internet, my heart sank. He is neither. In his book, he decries the materialism, huckster qualities, and greedy salesmanship of the evangelical movement. He goes so far as to write about his supposed superiority by refusing to return to his previous exploitations even though he is flat broke and failing in his professional endeavors. From this, I suppose, the reader is to presume his moral superiority to those who hawk their goods in Christian circles.

But isn’t that exactly what he’s doing by hawking his book? He’s just doing it by backing into it instead of walking in the front door. Search the web, and you’ll find the many interviews and reviews which rely on his Christian credentials, political credentials, and family name for the validity of the book. He’s shamelessly exploiting the book with absolutely no difference from the worst of what he decries. This just a way to make money. As he himself states in the book, the ACLU needs the stupidity of Right to raise money and the Rutherford Institute needs the stupidity of the Left to raise money; life is good for both sides when there’s a big fight. In his book, to sell his book and make money, Schaeffer relies on the hatred and disdain the Left feels for the Right to read and discuss his book, and he relies on the outrage of the Right regarding the book’s the name calling and animosity to leaders in the Right to push book sales. This book is nothing more than an aging star’s sequel in order to make a quick buck and shore up a sagging bank account.

As a believer in the Lord Jesus, I have lived out my faith on the front lines of the pro-family movement and the political movement, and we have had many crushing moral failures and theological failures, there is absolutely no question. But human failures do not translate into philosophical failures, and Schaeffer’s attack I place in the same category as I place other human failings of other Christians. He is wrong, and he is failing the body of Christ by his exploitation. I have much more to say, but it is too long for this thread. In the end, pervasive sadness greets me when I think of this man and his book. What a shame.

I agree with the World Magazine reader (responding to the World Magazine interview with Frank Schaeffer that can be found via this link http://www.worldmag.com/articles/13401) who said:

"I'm sure I'm not the only one who wishes Frank Schaeffer would grow up. A 300-page book telling us that his parents (Francis and Edith Schaeffer) are human is a terrible waste of trees"
—Bill Crouse; Richardson, Texas

I would only add my own comments (which I emailed to World Magazine but were not published) which were . . .

"I have noticed over the years that in his books and lectures Frank Schaeffer somehow fails to apply the same high standards and 'clear' thinking to himself that he applies so liberally to others.

Apparently Jesus' command to 'First get the beam out of your own eye' doesn't apply to the sons of famous, influential Christian authors."
(email to World Magazine)

Personally, I have felt this way since the late 1970's when Frank was publicly railing again, and again against the appallingly mediocre quality of the Christian art of the time while generating his own glut of appallingly mediocre art. I'm sure that anyone who has read "Addicted to Mediocrity" (written at the level of about a C+ college freshman) or seen "Wired to Killed" (produced at the level of a High School film class project) or any of Frank's other painfully awful films (it was amusing to read how he justified doing low budget horror films as "art" in Christianity Today) will be nodding their head in agreement at this point.

I recall that "back in the day" it was painful and embarrassing to hear both Dr. Schaeffer and Edith gushing over their son's bad art and rationalizing his rude behavior. Looking back I realize now that they were simply two proud parents blinded by their love for their son - easy to forgive, but hard to forget given how Frank has turned out.

This is all very, very sad (and, to my way of thinking FAR too public).

Never-the-less, despite my disapproval over his ongoing misadventures I wish Frank all the best and hope that someday he will find the peace, serenity and maturity that seems to have somehow eluded him so far.

God bless us one and all.

/fwa

Well, I haven't read the book yet. When I do, I don't suppose my comments will be nearly so erudite as those already posted. I only know that watching Frank Schaeffer last night on C-span was Recognition. Frank Schaeffer and I share similar backgrounds -- raised outside of the US mostly, around missionaries, parents in church leadership -- and Frank and I have come to much the same place. SICK OF EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANITY Yet --- still believing the Apostle's Creed. I can't be a Roman Catholic, guess I'll check into Greek Orthodoxy.

Seems to me there's a trend toward disparaging his book, disparaging him --- but throwing in some Christian charity to take the edge off -- because he's messin' with everyones complacency.

forgot the last word at my posting's end:

"...besides placing them in bizarre situations and weird company."

I think you and the readers of your blog would do well to read these words from:

Books & Culture, March/April 2008

Fathers and Sons
On Francis Schaeffer, Frank Schaeffer, and Crazy for God.
by Os Guinness

If asked what is the deepest relationship imaginable, many people would say it is between lovers, or between husbands and wives. The case can be made, however, that from a Christian perspective, no relationship is more mysterious and more wonderful, yet sometimes more troubling, than that of fathers and sons. The depth and wonder begin with all we know of the relationship of God the Father and God the Son, while the troubled aspects stem from the Fall. Consider Absalom's rebellion against King David in the Old Testament, Edmund Gosse's exposure of his father Philip, the Oedipal drive in the writings of Sigmund Freud—and now Frank Schaeffer's Crazy for God, a memoir that is his personal apologia at the expense of his famous father, Francis Schaeffer, who was the founder and leader of the worldwide network of L'Abri communities.

Frank Schaeffer unquestionably adored his father, just as his father passionately adored him. Having lived in their home for more than three years, I have countless memories of this, including the sight of the two of them wrestling on the floor of the living room of their chalet, and ending with a fierce hug. Yet no critic or enemy of Francis Schaeffer has done more damage to his life's work than his son Frank—a result that one might not be able to infer from many reviews of the memoir, including that which appeared in the previous issue of Books & Culture.

The problem is not so much that Frank exposes and trumpets his parents' flaws and frailties, or that he skewers them with his characteristic mockery. It is more than that. For all his softening, the portrait he paints amounts to a death-dealing charge of hypocrisy and insincerity at the very heart of their life and work. In Frank's own words, his parents were "crazy for God." Their call to the ministry "actually drove them crazy," so that "religion was actually the source of their tragedy." His dad was under "the crushing belief that God had 'called' him to save the world." Because of this, his parents were "happiest when farthest away from their missionary work." Back at their calling, they were "professional proselytizers," their teaching was "indoctrination," and it was unclear whether people came to faith or were "brainwashed" and "under the spell" of his parents. Frank's own arguments in their support, he now says, were a kind of "circus trick."

Frank's baleful influence on his father is a textbook example of how Christian ministries and organizations can be ruined through undermining their own principles—in this case, through nepotism and family politics.

Commenting on the time when Francis Schaeffer went through his watershed crisis of doubt in 1951, which he claimed was pivotal to his faith and work, Frank says it was never resolved with any integrity: "Somehow he convinced himself to still believe." His father's "stunted" theological convictions "he held on to more as emotional baggage … than for any intellectual reason." Really? "Left to himself, Dad never talked about theology or God … . God and the Bible were work." And he was different when away from L'Abri altogether: "Dad never said grace over meals. It was as if Dad and I had a secret agreement that away from L'Abri, we were secular people."

And so it goes. With such a son, who needs enemies? To be sure, Frank tries to nuance the conclusion: "I once thought Dad's ability to present two very different faces to the world—one to his family and one to the public—was gross hypocrisy. I think very differently now. I believe Dad was a very brave man," one who simply had to "carry on"—the victim, presumably, of his own unresolved but inadmissible inner tensions. Yet there is no way round it. Francis Schaeffer, in his son's portrait, lacked intellectual integrity. There was a lie at the very heart of the work of L'Abri, and the thousands of people who over the decades came to L'Abri and came to faith or deepened in faith, were obviously conned too.

I challenge this central charge of Frank's with everything in me. I and many of my closest friends, who knew the Schaeffers well, are certain beyond a shadow of doubt that they would challenge it too. Defenders of truth to others, Francis and Edith Schaeffer were people of truth themselves.

For six years I was as close to Frank as anyone outside his own family, and probably closer than many in his family. I was his best man at his wedding. Life has taken us in different directions over the past thirty years, but I counted him my dear friend and went through many of the escapades he recounts and many more that would not bear rehearsing in print. It pains me to say, then, that his portrait is cruel, distorted, and self-serving, but I cannot let it pass unchallenged without a strong insistence on a different way of seeing the story. There is all the difference in the world between flaws and hypocrisy. Francis and Edith Schaeffer were lions for truth. No one could be further from con artists, even unwitting con artists, than the Francis and Edith Schaeffer I knew, lived with, and loved.

Crazy for God unquestionably has its humorous passages. It also has some pages of lyrical beauty and poignancy in which Frank describes his wife Genie and his daughter Jessica. I have no problem with a picture of Francis Schaeffer "warts and all." I knew him well, and could have added one or two stories myself. He was always open about his flaws, just as he was compassionate toward those of others. I had my own disagreements with him. My wife and I actually left L'Abri in 1973 for principled reasons, grieved but certain that we, along with several others, needed to break with a community that we believed was missing its way—mainly because of the direction Frank was intent on taking it.

Yet despite all that, for those of us who were part of the story of L'Abri in the late '60s and early '70s, the better qualities and the legitimate revelations in the memoir are overwhelmed by a blindness and bitterness that cannot be excused. No one who witnessed the stature and diversity of the thousands who came to L'Abri's 50th-anniversary celebration in 2005 could doubt the depth of quiet, enduring gratitude that thousands owe to Francis and Edith Schaeffer. For many of us, they changed our lives forever and set us off on the strenuous and costly path we are still pursuing decades later with no reservations and no regret.

Are there other problems with the book? First, Frank's portrayal of his mother is cruel and deeply dishonoring, monstrously ungrateful since she poured herself out for him far more than his workaholic father. Edith Schaeffer was one of the most remarkable women of her generation, the like of whom we will not see again in our time. I have never met such a great heart of love, and such indomitable faith, tireless prayer, boundless energy, passionate love for life and beauty, lavish hospitality, irrepressible laughter, and seemingly limitless time for people—all in a single person. There is no question that she was a force of nature, and that her turbo-personality left many people, and particularly young women who tried to copy her, gasping in her slipstream. To many of us she was a second mother, and in many ways she was the secret of L'Abri.

Yet Frank describes his mother as a "high-powered nut," who was "best at the martyrdom game." He mocks her with vitriol in several of his books, and her incredible and justly celebrated passion for beauty and excellence he dismisses with a postmodern sneer as a mission that was "nothing less than repairing the image of fundamentalism." Several times I saw her reduced to tears in private after his barbs against her. But now in her nineties, with her failing memory, she neither fully knows nor is able to respond to all he has written about her. "If I read it," she said to me about one of Frank's earlier books, "it would probably break my heart."

Second, Frank's descriptions of other people and events are often equally irresponsible and wildly inaccurate. He rightly disavows the immaturity of his early books and films. He was as "addicted to mediocrity" as anyone he attacked. But for all his improved writing style, his manner of sneering dismissals is unchanged. Sometimes he is ludicrously negative, as in his remarks about Billy Graham and Carl Henry. Sometimes he is self-servingly positive, citing compliments from people—such as Malcolm Muggeridge—who were well known for their overall scathing dismissals of both Francis and Frank. Sometimes he is just plain cruel, as in his description of the woman assigned to be his home school tutor—and as in most cruelty, he is worst when mocking those unable to reply.

Third, Frank's broad dismissals of faith different from his own are often absurd, and his portrayal of recent Christian history is woefully ignorant. On the one hand, he routinely conflates evangelicalism with fundamentalism, or disdainfully dismisses evangelicalism as "fundamentalism-lite," the child of an older fundamentalism. The reverse, of course, is true. Fundamentalism is the recent movement, and evangelicalism pre-dates it by centuries. On the other hand, he inflates his own role in founding the Religious Right, even if out of self-flagellating disgust.

Frank says he was "the prime mover and shaker when it came to making sure that Dad got truly famous within the evangelical subculture," and that he and his father were "amongst the first to start telling American evangelicals that God wanted them involved in the political process." Yet Francis Schaeffer's international recognition came far earlier than the Religious Right, and calling Schaeffer "the father of the religious right" overlooks the far more crucial early role of such players as Ed McAteer, Paul Weyrich, Richard Viguerie, and Jerry Falwell, who were the real fathers of the movement.

Apart from these flaws, and above all the central one mentioned first, Frank Schaeffer's memoir raises other grave issues for me. For a start, I am dismayed by the responses to the book. It has understandably given perverse comfort to those who already dislike the Christian faith, or evangelicalism, or conservatism. More troubling is how many evangelical reviewers and readers have betrayed symptoms of the postmodern disease in their response. The book's revelations are taken as gospel and the book is judged in terms of its style rather than its substance. Our postmodern age is a free schooling in cynicism, so nothing is ever what it appears to be and there are no heroes once you see what really makes people tick. But no one should take Frank's allegations at face value.

At a deeper level, Frank's baleful influence on his father is a textbook example of how Christian ministries and organizations can be ruined through undermining their own principles—in this case, through nepotism and family politics. We have a rash of nepotism currently afflicting evangelicalism across the board, so this point carries wider lessons. In the early 1970s, when I was considering my long-term future at the Swiss L'Abri, I remember asking John Stott and James Houston what sort of questions I should be asking. Among other things, they both made the same point: "Watch and see whether the Schaeffers truly give authority to those who are not family members, or whether the family members are always more equal than others."

Frank unwittingly confirms their wisdom by openly admitting that his role was the result of "nepotism," and by acknowledging that "it was our family, not the other L'Abri workers and members, who were really calling the shots." Yet the worst example of nepotism and family politics was his own disastrous persuading of his father to enter the political fray. After the Lausanne Congress in 1974, I remember well how Francis was blackly depressed, believing he had no more to say. It was Frank, alarmed at what he saw, who then abandoned his own aspirations as an artist and became his father's "sidekick" in order to re-charge his father with visions of political activism.

In the process Frank overrode the established principles of how decisions were made at L'Abri. As he acknowledges, he "goaded" Schaeffer toward the strident and increasingly gloomy last period of his life, and he himself became a brash and intemperate hothead, notorious for his slashing attacks on evangelical scholars who disagreed with him. The net effect of Frank's efforts was to sow the seeds of his own self-loathing, and also to return his father to fundamentalism and to undermine his reputation in the long term. That was the first time in my experience at L'Abri when a major decision was made without unanimity among the leaders, and it was clear that the family trumped everyone else and Frank trumped everyone else in the family. It was the breaking point for me and many others.

The deepest issue of all lies in how all this happened, and here Frank gives us the clue but never follows the trail with the honesty he should have. Throughout the memoir he says he was neglected by his parents, which may have been true—though he was always central in the daily thoughts and prayers of his mother, and at the time he welcomed the neglect as freedom. Frank also hints at his ability to manipulate his parents because of their guilt over the neglect: "No one has more power over a loving father (especially if that father feels a bit guilty for neglecting his children) than a beloved son."

But neglect and guilt are not the deepest explanation. The real truth is that Franky, as he then called himself, was spoiled. He was more like a poster child for Benjamin Spock than the son of "fundamentalist missionaries." Having been born well after his sisters, and having survived polio as a child, he was rarely challenged, disciplined, or denied. As a result, he grew up a "little Napoleon," as some of the L'Abri students called him. He would boast that he could twist his parents around his little finger, and time and again he proved it.

Running away from boarding school at fifteen, Frank was bright and gifted, with talents that showed as clearly in his art then as in his writing now. But he bucked at all formal education and serious tutoring, and his claim that he then received a "'great books' British university-level literature course" comes as quite a surprise to his tutor. Francis actually praised Frank's dropping out of school to a friend of mine, arguing that "Christians should be like Bolsheviks." Later, pushed far out of his depth by the momentum of his and his father's activism, Frank found himself propelled into becoming the arrogant, pompous, and hollow young fraud that, to his credit, he came to loathe and then repudiate. Frank himself is where the con artistry came into the story.

In sum, the combination of neglect, guilt, nepotism, and spoiling was a toxic brew. Some sons of famous Christian fathers are pushed by their fathers into following in their footsteps, and they respond with a slow-burning resentment that comes to cast a shadow on their fathers' reputations. In Frank's case, he chose to steer his father's steps for his father's sake, so he is responsible rather than resentful. But he is responsible for what he now acknowledges was a horrible outcome, so he turns on his entire upbringing to excuse his role.

Does all this matter outside the Schaeffer family and the wider L'Abri community, which in its many branches continues the Schaeffer's work quietly and effectively? Would it not be better to let sleeping dogs lie, and judge Frank's memoir by its readability? There are powerful lessons here for any organization and ministry in which the founder's family plays a part. But what matters in the end is that Francis and Edith Schaeffer's place in 20th-century evangelicalism—and their contribution to the lives of so many—is too important to surrender to such a scurrilous caricature.

Speaking for myself, my heritage is not fundamentalism and my intellectual mentor is the eminent sociologist Peter Berger. But there is much that I owe directly to Francis Schaeffer, such as my understanding of apologetics. One thing above all I will never deny, and for that I am eternally grateful, however great his flaws and however wrong he was on certain details of philosophy and history: I have never met anyone anywhere like Francis Schaeffer, who took God so passionately seriously, people so passionately seriously, and truth so passionately seriously. The combination was dynamite, and it is that vision and style of faith, rather than the content of his thinking, which is the debt I owe to him. With Nietzsche, Schaeffer could well have said, "All truth is bloody truth to me." The idea that such a man was "crazy for God," let alone a two-faced con man, is and will always be utterly anathema to me. I was there. I saw otherwise, and I and many of my friends have been marked for life.

One of Frank's more curious accusations is that evangelicals have no sense of the journey of faith. Perhaps he has forgotten John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, which has far outsold any other account of the journey of life and faith. And that is where I find hope at the end of Frank's memoir. He is plainly still on the road. The book is dedicated to his daughter Jessica, and he hints of his guilt over the way he treated her when she was small. He may yet examine himself more deeply, and he may yet find himself at home with his faith. I pray he will one day.

Forty years ago, Frank and his father used to mock the weak ending of John Osborne's play Luther, in which the ringing certainty of "Here I stand" was replaced by the hesitancy of "I hope so." Yet "I hope so" and "If there is a God" are the very words Frank uses to describe his own Orthodox faith now. With his prodigious but wayward talents, my old friend still has the air of the restless prodigal.

But we all have journeying still to be done—in Frank's case, a long and winding journey home indeed, but with both a waiting Father and a waiting father and mother at its end.

I understand what Os is saying in his review. I think that in large part the things that Frank "revealed" about his parents and family had been at least alluded to by Mrs Schaeffer years before. She discussed her husband's tendency to throw things, his temper, her own reaction to criticism of essentially going into high gear. She also alluded to disagreements at family reunions. etc. Now, admittedly, she put a different spin on things than Frank did. From her perspective it was merely examples of living in a fallen world and examples of how in a family we are to remain loyal in spite of these problems. Frank sees this as over-spiritualizing things, I tend to see it as an important reminder that family is a place of growth and forgiveness. However, the fact is that most of what Frank lays out vividly his mother had laid out more quietly years ago.

Mrs. Schaeffer, and Susan Macaulay as well, have always used illustrations from their own family life to make points. Consequently anyone who is familiar with their books and Frank's earlier Sham Pearls for Real Swine, shouldn't be tremendously surprised by what he has to say in Crazy for God. Nor should they be surprised that a Schaeffer would be willing to reveal family secrets. It does seem to me that not only Frank, but Debby Middleman and Priscilla Sandri at least have mixed feelings about their growing up years. It seems like much of what Frank is remembering is things that happened before the years that most of Dr. Schaeffer's impact was felt. He focuses on the years of pietism, even while admitting that this was not his parents' stance later on. However, sometimes he conflates the two eras in a way that seems to accuse his parents of hypocrisy even when he admits that their stance changed.

I suspect that both Schaeffers were under a great deal of stress when they had 30 extra people living in their house constantly. I suspect that it was a great deal of stress dealing with the finances and the simple day to day physical work that needed to be done. Whether those stresses caused more "craziness" or not, who knows.

I do think that it is important for Christians to look at the impact that their "ministry" is having on their family. Far too often the needs and best interests of the family are put on the back burner as the ministry swallows up all the time and energy. Mrs. Schaeffer was clearly aware of that problem when she wrote What is A Family. That she and Dr. Schaeffer didn't manage to avoid those particular shoals is perhaps a lesson we should all learn from. There is good reason for the Catholic Church's decision to adhere to clerical celibacy. It is extremely difficult for a married couple to meet the needs of their children, each other, and a ministry all at the same time. At the time that L'Abri was at its height of popularity there were other Christian communities attempting similar kinds of communal life, if not similar kinds of apologetic ministry. Many of the children who grew up in those communities are now far from the faith because of their experiences in these settings. I suspect that many of them will find Frank's experiences to be familiar.

Os came to L'Abri as a grownup. Even the Schaeffer daughters did not have their growing up years in the midst of the L'Abri of the 60's and 70's. Only Frank grew up in the midst of it all. I doubt that his parents intended to forget about him, and it's clear that they supported his artistic pursuits and attempted to find educational settings for him that were appropriate. That they failed to find help for his dyslexia is not all that unusual. I've observed a number of young men who've gone through public schools in our area who were no more literate at 11 than Frank was despite special reading programs and certified teachers. If Mrs. Schaeffer had been able to devote hours a day to Frank's home study program, and had she been aware of some of the programs out there dealing with dyslexia perhaps he would have had an easier time of it. However, there are no guarantees of that. What is clear is that while the Schaeffer's were aware that Frank wasn't making good progress academically, they either didn't have the time to deal with the problem effectively, or more likely they simply didn't know how to do so. In an era before the internet searches finding help for learning disabilities was not easy, even in metropolitan areas, and in the small town of Huemoz it must have been even more difficult. However, quite clearly the Schaeffers were not able to give Frank the same degree of attention that they were able to give their daughters when they were young and growing up in St. Louis. So all that other people gained from L'Abri and the Schaeffer's ministry was to some degree at Frank's expense and even to some degree at the expense of their daughters.

I strongly suspect that Frank's story is not yet over. He has been critical of fundamentalists for a long time and many of the criticisms he lodged in Sham Pearls have proved to be incredibly valid. His own experience of faith is much more grounded in the worship than in theology at this point. That may continue to be the case, or he may come to find a balance between the two halves of his life at some point. What is clear is that at this point he, like some other writers (Evelyn Waugh comes to mind) has found satire to be a style that works for him. In Crazy for God, as in his first three novels he is mining his own past and mining the part of his past in which his birth family played a huge role. In Baby Jack and some of his other later work that is not the case. I can easily see Frank writing a novel about life in an Orthodox parish, or about a New England prep school, or life as a painter and never once referring to the fundamentalist world or his parents at all.