"Yet no critic or enemy of Francis Schaeffer has done more damage to his life's work than his son Frank"
~ Os Guiness
I have posted on the enigmatic Franky Schaeffer before. My recollection of him was as a fiery pro-lifer. I have not read any of Franky's books, however. Sounds like it is a good thing I haven't.
Franky's latest book, Crazy For God, is a memoir in which Franky does great damage to the reputation and memory of Francis and Edith Schaeffer. Fortunately, Os Guiness does not stand idly by. Guiness' review of the book is posted in Christianity Today.
" 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."
... snip ...
"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."
Guiness puts his finger on part of what is going on.
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.
The final paragraph hit home with me in particular.
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.
This paragraph resonated with me as the son of a famous Christian father. First, I am grateful that my own father never pushed me into following his footsteps. I have pursued a vocation that had nothing to do with professional Christian ministry. He has blessed and encouraged me every step of the way. Second, as a father who is active in lay Christian ministry myself, I need to be very, very careful to not neglect my sons and daughters whilst I am out trying to "save the world".
My family was, is, and will be my most important ministry.
( hat tip: Through a Glass Darkly )
As you note, you're lucky that you haven't read Franky's books, at least those that were written during his "activist" phase. They're about as incendiary and poorly reasoned as Bolshevik propaganda. At least he's dialed down the volume somewhat, so people who are inclined to believe his latest revelations about the world don't immediately dismiss him as a crank; of course, the danger is that people will believe Franky's latest, more user-friendly "reality" is any more truthful or gracious than the last version presented to the public for consumption.
Francis Schaeffer at his best encouraged his listeners to address modern intellectual life and culture. On the other hand, I never had much use for Franky and his flamethrower tactics, no matter what the target. Guinness' piece for Books & Culture is helpful in that someone who had much better access to information about Frank and the Schaeffers confirms my impressions.
Posted by: halflight | March 04, 2008 at 10:08
Guiness isn't the only former associate of the Scaheffer family who looks askance at the way Franky was rasied. Further, the few of Frank Schaeffer's books I have read were bitter disappointments. The man wrote like someone who learned everything by mouth to ear, with little patience for serious reading.
Posted by: kepha | September 04, 2008 at 15:31