The Mind of Brian

A couple of weeks ago, I was looking for a “fun” book to read on the side (my definition of “fun” is a lot different than other people’s!). I looked in the biography section of the library and found Crazy for God by Frank Schaeffer. He is the son of Francis Schaeffer; I knew he followed in his dad’s footsteps for a while but then left the evangelical fold but was not sure the whole story behind it. This book is his memoirs and it seemed intriguing to me to understand more about Schaeffer’s work as well as Frankie’s leaving of the evangelical fold (he is now Eastern Orthodox).

He makes it clear that it is not an autobiography, he did not go back to research things and, therefore, some dates, locations, etc. might be wrong. Therefore, this really must be read as HIS memory of different events; it is very subjective. In true post-modern fashion, one has to remember that he is out to sell books as well as to push his own agenda, which is most likely going to be to try to bring down the image of his family, his father’s work, and the religious right. That being said, it does show the perspective of a man who was part of the forefront of the evangelical movement (the religious right of the ’70s and ’80s) and why he left; it is “a” take on the situations. There are many things to think about from this book, but I guess I will focus on three: his portrait of his parents, his view of evangelicalism, and the connection between L’Abri and the religious right movement.

He seems to paint a contradictory picture of his parents, more harsh on his mom than on his dad. They are uptight legalists for the most part according to Frank but also have a kind heart, modelling the love of Christ to the outcast (gays, unwed expecting mothers, etc). They were dedicated to the work and neglected to look out for him or really get to know him. However, he almost makes it sound like his dad was uncomfortable with his place in the Christian world and would have loved to escape it; he would rather look at art than talk theology (can’t help but wonder if this is because more talking about theology is part of “doing work” as most of us in ministry have felt). If Frank claims that his parents didn’t really get to know him well, then can we think that HE knew them that well. Not sure what to make of his portrait of his dad; he probably was a sinner and a saint, though who knows if his sins were the ones that Frank points out. But, as he said, these were his thoughts about the work. It always makes me wonder how my own family will remember me, as well as how others close to my life view my work.

The second area was Frank’s assessment of the evangelical movement as one that has many power-hungry individuals and has a mass that simply follows the next “big thing.” The people are in many cases phonies anyway and self-righteous at that. I have seen this side of the church through my years and it helped me to ponder things like, “Am I listening to Tim Keller, Dr. Lorrits, or Dr. Carson or other key leaders right now because they are the “flavor of the month?”" But as I thought about it, I think that something like the Gospel Coalition is focusing on the right things, on the gospel and not on people. These are the people thay I am attracted to. They are building smaller churches rather than larger churches; maybe elements of the evangelical movement and seen this and have responded. I hope I am not a “bandwagon” Christian; hopefully, my contrarian impulses will protect me from this danger.

Thirdly, Schaeffer wrote about the connection between his dad’s work in L’Abri and the formation of the religious right in American (which, as he pointed out as a little ironic, in that Frank did not even grow up in America or know much about what America was truly like). While my guess is that Frank might have over-stated his role in it, this connection seems true from what I can follow. This made me a bit uneasy, as I am a fan of Schaeffer’s work on culture and on cultural engagement but do not particularly like the religious right. Can I hold the two in tension? There is that uneasy nature of Reformed thought that “all true is God’s true” and to be “cultural agents” that leads to seeking to cause political reform; we have seen this in the theonomy of some Christian leaders in my circles (also known as Christian Reconstruction). The more I thought, though, this does not seem to be the only way that one can speak of being a “cultural agent”; I would prefer to follow an ethic of influence rather than one of legislation. I think this also fits the idea of what it means that “all truth is God’s truth.” Frank Schaeffer pointed out that the “religious right” is actually very anti-American, in that they hope the nation falls so that they can prove their point (“that is what happens when you don’t follow God’s laws). That was an interesting thought to consider; it seems true in some regards. Is even the idea of forming a “Christian nation” against the idea of a “pluralistic” “deistic” nation that I think better characterizes the founding documents of this country? He also noted the rise of “single-issue” politics among Protestants (which Everett Koop and Francis Schaeffer help form); before Whatever Happened to the Human Race, abortion was a Catholic issue in many regards. While I do not want to underplay this issue, it seems (as Frank notes) that we have moved beyond this in our political world today.

Interesting read.