Os Guinness rips "Crazy for God"

Is anyone going to consider the possibility that Frank is telling the truth?

I'm in the middle of Franky's book right now. His telling of the Schaeffer family story is really interesting to me, as someone who spent many years in the evangelical world. Far from being horrified by his portrayal of Francis and Edith Schaeffer, I find myself liking them far more, seeing that they were just real, struggling people, trying to make sense out of God and the Bible. Francis Schaeffer's struggle--at least as related by his son--don't scandalize me. Those who have earned their living as ministers of the Gospel know the painful truth that it is one thing to preach, another to live the truth. That Francis Schaeffer and his wife were human and flawed shouldn't surprise anyone. Whether or not their son should make it public, I'm not sure.

Not all fathers are angels, Rod.

So much so, that not even all sons love their fathers -- or at least, can love them in a Hallmark-card Father's Day sense, for the sake of their own mental health.

(BTW, Rod, when last we discussed this, didn't you admit you have the inevitable confessional sense of the journalist **yourself** when dealing with such matters?!)

I was a student and later a helper at L'Abri in Switzerland in the post-Schaeffer era. I've also read Frank's book and while there are some wonderfully touching moments when he speaks fondly of people who are also dear to me, I do wonder if he has the right to air dirty laundry that is not his own. One of the mostly forcibly notable things about L'Abri (at least in the 80s and 90s was the extent to which the staff there were NOT wide-eyed about the Schaeffers -- in fact, I would go so far to say that there was an effort to disabuse students of any idea of a Schaeffer mystique and while Schaeffer's ideas and contributions were cited frequently, they were certainly not above criticism and the personal failings of both Edith and Francis were not glossed over. To an ex-fundy, heartily sick as I was of the big personalities in the Christian world, this was all deeply encouraging.

Os would be better off if he would drink a couple of Guinness and calm down. That the Schaeffers were more than a little off their rockers is no surprise.

the better qualities and the legitimate revelations in the memoir are overwhelmed by a blindness and bitterness that cannot be excused.

A good observation by Guinness, part of a brilliant, devastating review. It applies often in our build up-tear down culture.

My first thought upon reading the excerpt here was, "But is Frank telling the truth?" It would certainly seem to matter a lot, from a historical/biographical standpoint, whether Frank's evaluation of his father's habits and personality were accurate or not.

But then, after considering the comments here (and elsewhere, particularly a long and thoughtful thread over at Mere Comments on another review of the book) I began instead thinking, "What's the point?" What exactly does Frank seek to accomplish in his book, and how successful is he? And here, I think, is where critics of the book rightly object.

If his purpose is truly to invite a careful, nuanced reevaluation of Francis Schaeffer's work and legacy, then Frank has been crippled by what we may charitably call his stylistic excesses. His writing expresses strong emotions of anger and resentment, both at his parents and at the way they have since been viewed by others. This leads the reader to wonder whether Frank's viewpoint might be biased by his own personal tension, or possibly by some other unexpressed agenda. At any rate, instead of making the reader more confident that a full and accurate biographical picture of the Schaeffers is emerging, Frank's rather histrionic tone reduces confidence in his status as an objective and reliable source.

If his purpose is instead simply to deflate people's views of his parents and to emphasize their most negative personal aspects, then critics can quite rightly accuse Frank of airing dirty laundry and dishonoring their memories. I don't think we should jump to the conclusion that this is what he is after, but again, his style might make reasonable critics suspicious. This is not, after all, the first angry memoir ever written by a son about his parents.

Well, that's interesting. Some of my relatives have had a good deal to do with Swiss L'Abri.

I can't say this article reflects well on any of the Schaeffers or Guinness. A.J. Heschel says that the Fifth Commandment entails a reciprocal duty, that the parents must act in a way- with a standard of integrity- that their child can sincerely honor. Guinness may think he is putting up a worthy defense of the parents and his own part, but it seems to me the concessions he makes of necessity make his case a lot worse, not better.

But that's minor. It doesn't seem to me that Guiness refutes in substance the central charge of faith sustained by willpower alone. He even unintentionally enforces it, admitting to individual significance in Francis Schaeffer's life and faith of the two components that (when coupled) compose willpower- loosened restraint of desire and, err, marked restraint of reason.

What if Isaac had written about Abraham and his predilection for conveniently twisting the truth when his neck may have been on the line?

What if Jacob had written a book about the remarkably dysfunctional marriage his parents had and which is about the only thing we're told about them in the book of Genesis?

What is so difficult to grasp about the God of yahoos like Abraham, Isaac and Jacob possibly also using a yahoo like Francis Schaeffer?

""She was an evil woman." So, was that okay? Or was that "detraction"? What if Chelsea Clinton were one day to write an autobiography, in the course of which she told of her love for her parents, but critiqued their philosophy and revealed some of their actions to have been misguided or hypocritical? Should virtuous Christians avert their eyes from such "detraction," or would it be fine to salivate all the way to the bookstore? Just wondering. . . "

Good questions. And as far as I'm concerned the child should never publically dishonor the parents. The rest is just politics imo, and have no bearing on the principle: Don't dishonor your parents. If need be, keep quiet.

It may be important for those stories to come out; maybe, maybe not. But they should not come from the children.

And as far as I'm concerned the child should never publicly dishonor the parents. The rest is just politics imo,

Why? Your proposal is itself just politics.

Jillian says: A.J. Heschel says that the Fifth Commandment entails a reciprocal duty, that the parents must act in a way- with a standard of integrity- that their child can sincerely honor.

I don't buy it.

Simon says: Frank is nevertheless being criticized by many of the these commenters (at least one of whom identifies himself as Orthodox) because his account of his parents' is unjust.

Count me as one of those. As an Orthodox Christian (who has something of a Reformed background!), Frank embarrasses me.

"And as far as I'm concerned the child should never publicly dishonor the parents. The rest is just politics imo,"

------

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)

"Then Moses said to them, "If you will do this—if you will arm yourselves before the LORD for battle, and if all of you will go armed over the Jordan before the LORD until he has driven his enemies out before him- then when the land is subdued before the LORD, you may return and be free from your obligation to the LORD and to Israel. And this land will be your possession before the LORD.

"But if you fail to do this, you will be sinning against the LORD; and you may be sure that your sin will find you out. Build cities for your women and children, and pens for your flocks, but do what you have promised." (Numbers 32:20-23)

I once sat in what was then called Trans-World Dome in St. Louis during a Promise Keepers event. A minister was preaching to us men from the passage in Numbers about sin, and how the sins that we think we have hidden will eventually be brought out by God. His point was that it was better to deal with them before God at a time we choose than to have God bring them out at a time of his choice.

It is not surprising to find people so willing to dismiss the account of Frank Schaeffer concerning his parents and those they associated with in their ministry. After all, Francis Schaeffer was considered by many to be the driving force behind modern evangelical Christianity's rise to power. To admit that some of the biggest movers and shakers within this movement were (and still are) power-hungry hypocrites requires much more intestinal fortitude than most evangelicals have.

The scalpel of criticism cuts deep and hurts mightily. It is much easier to use it against others than to use it on yourself. This is why so many evangelicals spurn those who leave the fold, for in leaving they often turn over the corner of the rug and show the filth piled beneath it.

Hey Sig,
You summed it up nicely. I completely agree. Now, to order that book...
Dave Chirico

I once sat in what was then called Trans-World Dome in St. Louis during a Promise Keepers event. A minister was preaching to us men from the passage in Numbers about sin, and how the sins that we think we have hidden will eventually be brought out by God. His point was that it was better to deal with them before God at a time we choose than to have God bring them out at a time of his choice.

It is not surprising to find people so willing to dismiss the account of Frank Schaeffer concerning his parents and those they associated with in their ministry. After all, Francis Schaeffer was considered by many to be the driving force behind modern evangelical Christianity's rise to power. To admit that some of the biggest movers and shakers within this movement were (and still are) power-hungry hypocrites requires much more intestinal fortitude than most evangelicals have.

The scalpel of criticism cuts deep and hurts mightily. It is much easier to use it against others than to use it on yourself. This is why so many evangelicals spurn those who leave the fold, for in leaving they often turn over the corner of the rug and show the filth piled beneath it.

Posted by: ds0490 | February 27, 2008 7:09 PM

I'm curious, ds0490 - have you read the book? The reason I am asking is that apart from Os's critique - which has some validity, but which also, I agree, may be too defensive of Père and Mère Schaeffer - there are some other aspects of the book that really do seem to reflect badly on Frank. Yes, it's his book, and yes, it's about him and his life, screwed up and screwed down as it was/is, but describing his masturbatory habits (both as a teen and as an adult) seems like a case of TMI and/or self-indulgence (literally and literarily).

describing his masturbatory habits

Exactly why I couldn't stomach Portofino's sequel, Saving Grandma.

Oh, I highly recommend Portofino. It's an entertaining read. Especially, I think, for those of us who grew up in an evangelical or Reformed household. Just stop there. (I think he has three books in the series.) If I remember correctly, it doesn't cross the line when addressing the character's budding sexuality. Unlike the next book.

As far as *profitable*, if I understand your meaning, I wouldn't read it during Lent. Too light. :)

I lived at L'Abri in the same chalet with Franky and Os Guinness during the period they are writing about. I know, first hand, that both of the Schaeffer's loved Os like a son. He was more of an older brother to Frank than just a friend. Os relates more of the true situation than Frank. Frank was angry, cruel, and narcissistic. How do I know? I still have the scar on my hand where he burned me with a cigarette, just because. He was sarcastic and cruel to those at L'Abri who were weak, were suffering emotional pain, or were not physically attractive(male as well as female). He was always on the prowl for the next "hot Chick." Os listened to Frank, but never responded unkindly to Frank's targets. He was always sensitive and respectful of those Frank looked down on. His sense of entitlement came not from being the son of Francis Schaeffer, but from being "the bad boy" that his parents despaired of and loved.

Frank claims that he was raised "on the job" in a house with 35 people. At most there were 10 people. The Schaeffers' had a private appartment on the second floor where only Frank, his parents, and his grandmother lived. It was very private and accessible by only their invitation. He throws around these inaccuracies to bolster his opinions which cannot stand the light of truth. Much in his books are justifications on his part for his own bad behavior and bad choices which he blames his on parents. Rather than "the devil made me do it," Frank says, "It's all their fault." I feel so sorry for Frank. He believes that happiness and freedom come from withdrawing from his family. He has turned his back on what many people have searched for all their lives. This is one prodical son who may never come home.

I just lost my other post, so here it is more briefly.

First of all, in my opinion, I loved the book.

Second of all, Frank is as hard and honest about himself as he is with his parents.

Third, although his sisters may not have chose this public forum to reveal the imperfections of of the family, they do not seem to disagree with Frank. Her pefectionism, making the family a constant "example", too much Christianese, or super spiritualizing - are dangers for religious families - and theirs may have been one.

Fourth, he seems to be more generous with his father than his mother. Why a mother would discuss her self life with their father with the children is beyond me.

Fifth - he is the opitome of a PK, times about 100.

Sixth, yes, we are one of those Schaeffer fans. We probably own every book Francis, Edith, Susan, and Frank has written. Now I know they are human, not demi Gods.

to me, this book is a searing warning in many regards, and the book was entertaining as well as that warning. Susan, by the way, talks about those same warnings in her book on education. That book shaped my parenting and education of my children more than any I had read.

Sadly he has taken it a step further and actually blamed his deceased father for the shooting death of Dr. George Tiller in his recent interview with Rachel Maddow. How sad