There was a time when Frank Schaeffer's anger...

... was understandable and paid homage to reason. No longer. The son of famous Evangelical/Reformed author and theologian Francis Schaeffer seems to have finally allowed anger to burn up all reason and charity. And so he produces rants such as this one in The San Fran Chronicle in which he identifies everyone he dislikes as a "fundamentalist" — including his father, Benedict XVI, and Republican leaders (how the Chronicle must love printing this!):

It is perhaps not coincidental that Cardinal Ratzinger, the most fundamentalist Roman Catholic cardinal, was chosen as the new pope. Fundamentalism is the big story of the 21st century. Ask anyone trying to teach evolution in a public school. Consider the 50 million copies sold of the "Left Behind" series about the second coming of Christ. Or listen to mullahs earnestly explain how to apply seventh-century religious law to so-called modern life -- say, why women should not be allowed to vote. Or watch Tom DeLay and Bill Frist attacking the judiciary for not being sufficiently fundamentalism-friendly.

When you start calling Benedict XVI a "fundamentalist," it says much about you and nothing about the pope. It says that you have not only started to lose your grip on reality, you have no respect for words, theology, history, and simple fairness. Really, Frank, which is more difficult: to teach Darwinian evolution or Intelligent Design in public schools? Apparently Schaeffer thinks that his anger at his "fundamentalist" upbringing makes him uniquely qualified to intolerantly and unfairly castigate "fundamentalists" for being intolerant and unfair:

I'm a novelist. I'm also the son of Francis Schaeffer, who, until his death in 1984, was one of the best-known fundamentalist theologians. My dad's followers included the founders of the religious right: Pat Robertson, James Dobson and Jerry Falwell. I fled the hot and heavy world of fundamentalism long ago. Then I wrote a farewell-to-all-that-craziness trilogy of novels about how fevered religion impacted my life.

We could probably debate whether or not Francis Schaeffer was really a fundamentalist in the strict, historical sense; despite his dislike of the Catholic Church I think that his often-impressive knowledge of history, theology, and the arts indicates that he was much more of an Evangelical. (I happily note that I read many of senior Schaeffer's books while in college and benefitted immensely from them.) Be that as it may, I find Frank Schaeffer's attitude distasteful. Obviously, as my first book (Will Catholics Be "Left Behind"?) indicates, I have no problem critiquing fundamentalist theology and the anti-Catholic beliefs of many fundamentalists. But to launch thinly veiled attacks on your father (via the "trilogy of novels") — and to continually lick this festering wound in public — borders on neurotic.

So, what exactly is Schaeffer attempting to say? A brief break in the smoke reveals this statement:

The final irony of fundamentalism, and the scholastic Catholicism represented by the new pope, is that fundamentalists turn out to be rationalists unwilling to abandon any part of their intellectual systems to embrace the mystery of spirituality.

This is a truly sad and pathetic remark. In fact, it is the sort of statement that a true fundamentalist would make: highly bigoted, unsubstantiated, and full of angry bluster. Has Schaeffer read any of Benedict XVI's twenty-some books? If he has, he has recklessly misrepresented his thought; if he hasn't, he is far more ill-informed than the "fundamentalists" he attacks. There is a place for righteous anger, but I fear that Frank Schaeffer's anger is of another kind — the sort that is unwilling to abandon any part of its intellectual system to fairly represent those who believe differently.

Comments

[Mark Brumley]

Wow.

Poor man. He is no longer the "Angry Young Man of Evangelicalism" because he is neither young nor Evangelical anymore. But he certain is still angry.

"The new pope will be welcomed by fundamentalists of all stripes. Evangelicals, Islamists, Orthodox Jews and the rest won't agree with his Catholic theology, but they will love his absolutist dedication to unchangeable 'certainties.' Certainties are what unite all fundamentalists: the fear of disorder and the unknown -- in other words, the fear of freedom," he writes.

For someone criticizing those with absolutist dedication to unchangeable 'certainties' his tone seems remarkably absolutist and certain. But then he has always talked that way, ever since he was a Fundamentalist.

Frank Schaeffer sounds as if he has simply changed one fundamentalism for another.

Was Francis Schaeffer a Fundamentalist? I think we must distinguish Fundamentalism as a theological outlook from fundamentalism as a cultural or cultural-theological outlook. Francis Schaeffer and "Franky" were theological Fundamentalists who disliked the cultural fundamentalism so characteristical of their theological associates.

Even as a theological outlook, Fundamentalism is really a series of Fundamentalisms. The pastor at Independent Fundamental Bible Church who attacks those who rely on "theologians" to intepret the Bible is different from the sophisticated authors of THE FUNDAMENTALS.

[Carl Olson]

Wow, indeed. What caught me off-guard about the piece was that Schaeffer had converted to Eastern Orthodoxy (Greek branch, if I recall) a number of years ago. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Greek Orthodox believe in absolutes and certainties. Clearly, somewhere along the way Schaeffer has lost his way.

[grateful_catholic]

Strange indeed. Apparently he now conceives his Orthodoxy as "not subscribing to any one-dogma-fits-all" (a view apparently not shared by the first seven Ecumenical Councils), but rather he is "someone who believes in paradox and mystery." (see http://beliefnet.com/story/135/story_13586_1.html ). Sounds like he's managed to remove all determinate content from the notion of "faith"...perhaps he's confusing Orthodoxy with Star Wars.

[Terry Fenwick]

Sad to see this. I can remember the brilliance of his father, Frank Schaeffer. I was a new believer in 1971 and discovered this man, this Frank Schaeffer, so gifted with words, who showed me you did not have to commit intellectual suicide to be a Christian. Not until I became a Catholic, and found the wealth of brilliant Catholic writers, did I find men as gifted with brains and words as Frank Schaeffer. The apple fell far from the tree. Or, perhaps, he will be like another Frank - Franklin Graham, the son of Billy Graham, who went out on his own to find his own God but did return to his father. He said, if I remember correctly, "I came home with my own faith, not just the faith of Billy and Ruth Bell Graham." Hurry home, Frankie Schaeffer - hurry home.

[Joe]

Franky Schaeffer's piece is hard to explain. His father, as others have here noted, was as easily classifiable an 'Evangelical' as a 'Fundamentalist,' a distinction you would think he of all people would appreciate.

And then there is the point C.O. makes so well: Ratzinger's books show him to be anyting BUT a fundamentalist. To mislabel him, and then lump him with terrorists... well, not cool, as they say.

Of course, he obviously is blinded by his experience. He references those dismayed by his novels. Well, I can tell him that he misses the reason most are likely bothered by them. It is not because they diss certain beliefs, but because the diss and show disrespect for his family, a protocol people instinctively resent. This is the same family that his been his meal ticket, first as an angry young man social critic in Evangelical circles, then as an expatriate satirizing his former community.

Even now, supposedly older and wiser, he gets his attention by invoking the Schaeffer name. I, for one, wish he would stop.

[MAJ David L. Jones]

Christ is in our midst!

Take a deep breath and relax. I encourage you to say the Jesus Prayer. "Lord, Jesus Christ, son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner."

Let me state from the beginning that I am a big fan of Pope B16 (God's Bomber Pilot). I have read and I will continue to read and meditate on his thought. I look forward to his pontificate and I welcome it.

As an Eastern Catholic (Melkite) in full union with Rome, not to mention with a "Roman" formation (Masters of Theological Studies, Univ. of Dallas ~ the same as Carl's... the entire program moved to Ave Maria University), I encourage you to go deeper in why the East criticizes the West for it's over emphasis on academic/intellectual approach towards the faith. One could state reasonably that the sense of mystery is lost when we do this to an extreme. I don't have time here to go into much detail (read Chapter Five of his own book Dancing Alone), but this criticism is valid.

I encourage you to read Frank Schaeffer's own books or watch his videos. As stated above, he has an incredible conversion story to Eastern Orthodoxy. He has also written several fiction works, in addition to, several great books on the second Gulf War.

The thought of de Lubac, Danielou, Balthasar, Congar, among many others, helped to rescue Western theology from itself. These giant thinkers return us to Sacred Scripture and the Church Fathers.

[Mark Brumley]

Thanks, David. But of course your reference to De Lubac, Danielou, Balthasar, and Congar only underscores Frank Schaeffer's problem. These men were major influences upon Ratzinger, esp. De Lubac and Balthasar, the same Ratzinger who, as Benedict XVI, Schaeffer accuses of Fundamentalism and "scholasticism."

Once again, Schaeffer lashes out in anger but he doesn't know what he is talking about. Can we expect that in ten or twenty years from now we'll all be treated to a tell-all book by Schaeffer about how terrible Orthodoxy is or how inherently bad Christianity is or how appeals to mystery in religion mask some new terrible truth he has discovered? Shall we find Schaeffer angry, yet again, and the rest of us the targets of his infallible wrath?

This is really getting old.

[Teresa Polk]

I can understand MAJ Jones' interest in supporting Schaeffer, as a lot of military families would do because Schaeffer has been supportive of his son who is in the Marine Corps. I have wondered whether we might show some compassion, give Schaeffer a wider deck right now, as I understand that his son was sent to the middle east a couple of months ago.

However, I don't think you can attribute this article to the difference between Catholics and the Orthodox Church. Schaeffer slams conservatives "of all stripes" in the following paragraph from the Chronicle article:

"Perhaps this weird convergence of liberal tolerance and fundamentalist absolutism offers an explanation as to why fundamentalists dominate our world. Holy warriors confront tolerant folks who believe that all religions are fine, or at least equally irrelevant. Tolerant people have trouble saying any beliefs are bad. It's an unequal contest. The new pope will be welcomed by fundamentalists of all stripes. Evangelicals, Islamists, Orthodox Jews and the rest won't agree with his Catholic theology, but they will love his absolutist dedication to unchangeable "certainties." Certainties are what unite all fundamentalists: the fear of disorder and the unknown -- in other words, the fear of freedom."

Here, not only does he categorize Pope Benedict XVI as a "fundamentalist," but this description could include people like Rowan Williams and a good many other self-described "lefties" who attribute their faith to the objective reality of the Christian God.

As Schaeffer himself admits, if "liberal tolerance" means "all religions are fine, or at least equally irrelevant" and that it is difficult to say that "any beliefs are bad," then it is difficult to compete on that basis with people who believe in the objective truth of the Christian faith. It is also difficult to justify, on that basis, moving from the Calvinist faith of his childhood to the Orthodox Church. To justify that kind of departure, he almost has to demonstrate that he moved in search of greater truth. Schaeffer acknowledges the difficulty with the relativist argument, but he does not really reconcile it with his conversion to Orthodoxy.

He is still not explaining his faith on its own merits -- by appealing to the ideas of faith and the call of God. He is still describing his faith with reference to his parents' faith. From the standpoint of Catholicism, Orthodoxy or Calvinism, it is troubling that Schaeffer does not describe his faith on its own footing, with reference to God and the Church.

[MAJ Jones]

Mark & Carl,

Christ is in our midst!

We are more in agreement than not in agreement here. As an Eastern Catholic, I recognize and value the truth and beauty within the West, i.e. the teachings of Benedict, Augustine, Aquinas, etc. There is much good contained with the West, but the West is not superior to the East! They have different approaches toward theology, spirituality, and the liturgy. Theses differences cannot and should not be erased or forgotten. The West can learn from the East and vice versa. The authentic Church breaths with two lungs! A good recent book reflecting this model is The Beauty Of The Infinite: The Aesthetics Of Christian Truth. I also encourage you to explore the very positive relationship that Communion and Liberation, an officially approved eccelisial movement in the Catholic Church, has with the East. If someone is curious to find out more about their method, just ask me.

My personal recommendation is to keep this discussion civil. If Frank did not publicly display a good attitude towards the West than we should respond first and foremost in prayer, and then action. Replying through insults and unfair character assignation reflects poorly on ourselves, not just on Frank. Let us pray my friends!

In regards to the leading figures of la nouvelle theologie or the ressourcement movement, they were all students of the Church Fathers, both West and East. I refer you to Balthasar's works on Ireneaus, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus, etc. And what about the internal battle within the Western Church between these figures of the Ressourcement Movement (one could argue they were the traditional Thomists in many ways over the issues of grace and nature, etc.) and the neo-Thomists (Garrigou-Lagrange, etc.) Not to mention the fact that Pope B16 is an Augustinian, not a Thomist or "scholastic" by the way. Being an Augustinian leads to a different emphasis in various fields or topics within theology. We (you and I) must all get our own facts in order.

Let us pray to Our Lady for guidance.

[Carl Olson]

MAJ Jones: Thanks for the comments. I don't see that being critical is contrary to being civil. Schaeffer's column deserves to be criticized and I think the criticism here has been very fair. I've been a Catholic for eight years now and have spent over half that time in a Byzantine Catholic parish; I am also fairly conversant in the works of the resourcement theologians. But all of that is really beside The Point, I think, since Schaeffer's comments -- as I said in my very first post -- say far more about him than about any of his "fundamentalist" targets.

I guess I'm a bit confused about why you say "we all must get our facts in order." Have we misrepresented Schaeffer, or Benedict XVI (whose works Ignatius Press publishes)? Of course BXVI is not a Thomist -- that's one of many reasons why Schaeffer's column betrays a regrettable lack of knowledge. His comments about Republicans and conservative Protestants are equally vacuous. But I think it does show that anger sells and gets attention, and that might be the saddest part of it all...

[Fr. Robert Hart]

The attack on the pope is an example of ignorance, arrogance and hostility. The attack on his own father and mother is a sin, as the Ten Commandments make clear. Even the attack on Tom Delay is perverse, since the congressman was trying to oppose judicial tyranny when it became the power that caused the lingering painful murder of Terri Schiavo. Schaeffer is writing something worse than mere banality. He has crossed over into the satanic realm.

[Teresa Polk]

Speaking of attacks, whose seventh century writings did Frank have in mind in this sentence from his Chronicle article?: "Or listen to mullahs earnestly explain how to apply seventh-century religious law to so-called modern life -- say, why women should not be allowed to vote."

I have never heard a Catholic or Protestant appeal to seventh century law. The west was in the dark ages. The great theologian/saint of the seventh century was St. John Climacus, highly revered in the Orthodox Church and very ascetic. Mullahs?

[Mark Brumley]

I presume he means Islamic law, not Christian law. Hence the reference to mullahs.

[MAJ Jones]

Christ is our midst!

We are more in agreement than not here. I feel, as all of you, that this was an angry and poorly written article on Frank's behalf. Mr. Schaeffer is compatible of much, much better.

One should admit though that Mark's comments (in particular his second paragraph above in his first response to my comments) are unfair. He judging the man off of one article and not the corpus of his works (books, talks, etc.). Not to mention the fact that he makes a prediction on what Frank will do decades from now. Were those comments really necessary my friend? Are we not stooping down to his level and being angry ourselves?

I think a fair question to ask is this - Has Mark himself read any books of Frank Schaeffer, i.e. Dancing Alone, etc? Is there anything of value in any of Frank's works? Has he even met the man or heard any of his talks? Why not engage the man's thought (his criticism of the West) in a serious way and not automatically discount them. Schaeffer's criticisms of the West are not his alone. Many, many in the East share them.

Are all of these Eastern criticisms of the West accurate and fair? Of course not, but let us explore why this is the case. Is there any truth in these criticisms though? This can be a moment of education for all of us.

Carl & Mark - why don't you do an article on the Scoop on this topic, i.e. Eastern Orthodoxy, Eastern Catholicism, etc? This will take some work... Let's roll up our sleeves and do the real work of a serious dialog with our Eastern brothers. You have done great work on Fundamentalist thought (Left Behind, etc.) and the Da Vinci Code, but this would be taking it to a whole different level.

[Mark Brumley]

Major Jones writes: "One should admit though that Mark's comments (in particular his second paragraph above in his first response to my comments) are unfair. He judging the man off of one article and not the corpus of his works (books, talks, etc.). Not to mention the fact that he makes a prediction on what Frank will do decades from now. Were those comments really necessary my friend? Are we not stooping down to his level and being angry ourselves?"

1. I was not "judging the man off of one article and not the corpus of his works." I was criticizing an element of his article and asserting that an element of his article worthy of criticism was in conformity with a lot of his other writings and critiquing it accordingly.

2. I did not "make a prediction on what Frank will do decades from now." I *asked* whether decades from now whether we might see the same sort of anger directed now at Fundamentalism and Catholicism directed at Orthodoxy and Christianity in general. My question wasn't a "prediction." Isn't there a difference between posing a question and making a prediction?

My *question* was based on the fact that Frank began his Christian writing career as an "angry" Evangelical criticizing Evangelicalism and then moved to Orthodoxy and issued "angry" criticisms of Evangelical Protestantism as such (and not merely of a certain failure of Evangelicals) and of Catholicism.

Here is what I wrote:

"Once again, Schaeffer lashes out in anger but he doesn't know what he is talking about. Can we expect that in ten or twenty years from now we'll all be treated to a tell-all book by Schaeffer about how terrible Orthodoxy is or how inherently bad Christianity is or how appeals to mystery in religion mask some new terrible truth he has discovered? Shall we find Schaeffer angry, yet again, and the rest of us the targets of his infallible wrath?"

Major Jones writes:

"I think a fair question to ask is this - Has Mark himself read any books of Frank Schaeffer, i.e. Dancing Alone, etc? Is there anything of value in any of Frank's works? Has he even met the man or heard any of his talks? Why not engage the man's thought (his criticism of the West) in a serious way and not automatically discount them. Schaeffer's criticisms of the West are not his alone. Many, many in the East share them."

1. In answer to Major Jones' question of whether I have ever read any books of Frank Schaeffer, the answer yes. I've read many of his books. And many of his articles. And I have heard him speak. I don't recall having met him, although it is possible I did. But I don't think that matters in this discussion.

2. Major Jones asks whether there is anything of value in his works. I would say the answer is yes. There are things of value in his work. But of course that isn't the point of this discussion. The point of this discussion is the article he wrote and his comments in defense of it--the article in which he attacked Benedict XVI as a fundamentalist, among other things.

3. Major Jones asks why not engage Frank Schaeffer's thought in a serious way rather than automatically discount it. I'm curious about who is supposed to have "automatically discounted" Schaeffer's thought and how Major Jones knows whether Schaeffer's thought is being "automatically discounted."

Major Jones writes:

"Were those comments really necessary my friend? Are we not stooping down to his level and being angry ourselves?"

1. I don't know whether my comments were "necessary" but they certainly were appropriate to the article and the author of it.

2. It is not clear to me who "we" is. I am not angry with Frank Schaeffer. Annoyed perhaps. Beginning to find his modus operandi tiresome, perhaps. But not angry.

[Teresa Polk]

Mark, you are right that Frank's reference to mullahs was a reference to present day Muslims who apply seventh century thinking to present day issues. However, Catholics and Orthodox are on thin ice if they reject another religion's reliance upon seventh century tradition to address present day problems. Catholics are more likely to look to principles from the sixth century (St. Benedict or Pope/St. Gregory) rather than the seventh. The Orthodox hold in great reverence the writings of saints, and St. John Climacus of the seventh century is one of their most revered. Moreover, he held some ascetic views scarcely more "free" than seventh century Islam. Thus, in a roundabout way, Frank's article somewhat insulted not only the Muslims but also others who draw present day values from writings of early centuries.

I don't know whether Ignatius Insight has any interest in posting such ecumenical articals as MAJ. Jones recommends, and I really do not see the problems with Frank's article as being an east vs. west issue at all. I am still hoping that my contact in Cyprus will know an Orthodox priest or monk whose English is good enough to look at Frank's article and give us a sound Orthodox response.

Meanwhile, if MAJ Jones wants to look at something considering Catholic and Orthodox views, he is welcome to take a look at a couple of postings I put on an Anglican forum about a week ago. The link for my name should take you to the right page. Approaching Trinity Sunday, I wrote something rather quickly, called "Communion and the Image of God," which synthesizes Pope Benedict XVI's concept of communion with Vladimir Lossky's concept of persons as created in the image of a Trinitarian God. And feel free to comment there too.

You are also welcome to take a look at a couple of reviews of Orthodox books that I placed on amazon.com. One is a review of John Chryssavgis's book of last year, "John Climacus: From the Egyptian Desert to the Sinaite Mountain." Clicking on my name there, you can reach my amazon page and my other reviews. The one that gets the largest number of positive votes is a review of the Dialogues of St. Symeon the New Theologian, an Orthodox saint from the late tenth/early eleventh century.

Thus, if you see my postings as being a western Christian opposing the East, that is a misconception. My criticisms of Frank's article is simply a criticism of one particular article, not a criticism of him personally.

[Mark Brumley]

Teresa: You're right about Christians being on thin-ice if they criticize Islam on the basis of the fact that Islamic leaders seek to apply seventh-century law to modern problems. Christians attempt to apply what could be described as first-century law. Obviously, we believe these principles to be more than first-century law; rooted in the Word of God, they have for us a perennial value. But then Muslims believe their religious tradition to be more than seventh-century law. I believe them to be mistaken about that, but I don't think their error is a matter of the calendar.

[MAJ Jones]

Christ is in our midst!

I would like to thank Mark & Teresa among others for their patience with me. I'm honored that you even replied to my ramblings. Mark, I respect you and appreciate all the work that you do. I've only heard the very best about you from students of yours (i.e. Greg Golden, etc.).

Would it not be interesting to address the criticisms of many Orthodox like Clark Carlton or Michael Whelton? One good Catholic work that can serve as a model is that of James Likoudis among others. Here is a book that I also recommend written by an Eastern Catholic Archbishop and Church Father of the Second Vatican Council.

[MAJ Jones]

Are you familiar with the work of the Russia cristiana house near Milano? Russia cristiana aims at spreading knowledge of the riches of the spiritual, cultural, and liturgical tradition of Russian Orthodoxy, fostering ecumenical dialogue, and contributing to the Christian mission in Russia. The site contains links to the magazine La Nuova Europa and La Casa di Matriona publishing house, valuable bibliographical information, addresses of specialized libraries, information on the iconographic school, Byzantine liturgy, and organized trips to Russia. Once again I refer you to the entire "Close Up" section of this TRACES.

[MAJ Jones]

Going back to the person of Michael Whelton, I would refer you also to his book, The Pearl. Specifically in this work I would review the section entitled "the Roman Catholic Church" in Chapter 1 and the entire chapters of 3 & 5. Outside of James Likoudis and Marcellino D'Ambrosio, very few Catholic apologists have entered the ring on these topics.

[Joel]

Regarding Mark's comments to Major Jones, as an Anglican who has posted here, I would be interested in finding out his comments regarding Pope BXVI's statement about communion and the image of God. URL please?

[Mark Brumley]

Joel: I'm not sure to which comments you refer? Are you talking about something I said or something said by Major JOnes?

[Shaun FitzPatrick]

It does appear that Mr. Schaeffer got a bit blustery in his comments. I would like to say that his novels, because they were very true to life, and very honest, touched me directly. I would not say they were tell "all" because I am surrounded by blue collar Marines who do "tell all" and Mr. Schaeffer's books are not anywhere close to that type of discourse. Having grown up in a very devout Catholic household, I share experiences with Mr. Schaeffer. I do, in fact, see similarities between very strict Catholics and very strict Presbyterians or whatever denomination. The humanity is lacking. My parents, and his, apparently, were more interested in how I measured up to some impossible standard than in knowing the real, but imperfect child I was. And that hurt. I think many children grow up feeling the same way. In reading his books (his novels, that is - I am aware of, but have not read his books regarding the Marine Corps) I found I was not alone and for that I am grateful.