Francis Schaeffer's shame...

Franky Schaeffer is a one-trick pony, whose one trick is betrayal. The only reason he has a name is the man on whose name he makes his living urinating.

To riff off Eliza, it does make one think of adulterers who are shocked, shocked when their accomplices cheat on them, doesn't it?

Dear Dan,

"We all fall in many ways," and no failures are clearer as we age than our own failures as fathers and husbands. So I'm convinced that if Francis were alive today, like all of us, he could trace the sins of his children (not just Franky) back to his own sins both during and prior to Franky's upbringing.

Otherwise, watching Franky, how do we learn the lessons we should as we ourselves raise our children? Franky is a lesson for fathers and mothers in a man whose arrogance and temper tantrums are horrible and teach us to discipline pride and temper tantrums in our own children. Now that one is obvious, but other ones not so much. Still, we should think beyond the obvious and see if there's any sin in the man that we see the beginnings of in our sons--then work to discipline those sins in our own children.

I think it would be impossible for anyone watching Franky not to wonder, as we all wonder with Bill Clinton, whether anyone crossed him when he was a child? Whether he ruled his domestic universe? Whether he was lost in the no-man's land between his mother's and father's ministries and all the adults passing through their home and lives? And so on...

Honestly, what person in his right mind would think that Franky came out of nowhere, but Absalom and Hophni and Phinehas came out of somewhere?

Does this invalidate Francis's wisdom and ministry? No, not at all. But it's cautionary to those of us carrying on similar work and callings today. Likely partly due to his knowledge of so many Christian personalities like the Schaeffers and what happened to their children, at my ordinatiion, Dad put this in his charge to me: "Don't sacrifice your children on the altar of your ministry."

Finally, I think we all need to realize that the condition of our marriages (are our wives submissive and content, or rebellious and bitter?) and our children (are they respectful and obedient, faithful, married in the Faith, following the Lord?) are basic qualifications for ministry.

Again, though, "We all fall in many ways." And if I get around to writing a book on my Dad's excellent fatherhood, the title I already have in mind may be more important than any of its content: "He Failed Gloriously."

Really, isn't that the story of every Christian? The life of faith is a life of ever new beginnings? A life of repentance?

Just some thoughts. Love,

>>On the other, it isn't magic, and parents don't control their children's hearts, or there wouldn't be the constant exhortations to the son to listen, pay heed, memorize, and so forth.

True, dear brother.

Love,

>

One considers the different reactions of Noah's sons to his drunkenness in Genesis 9. One shamefully broadcast his father's sin (incurring the judgment of God). The other two covered him. Two were wise sons in the face of their father's sin. One was a foolish son and paid the price.

In fairness, the NYT article says that Schaeffer gave up on evangelicalism and conservatism, but it doesn't exactly say that he gave up on faith in God. Are there other sources that support the latter view? Just for fun, I sent off an email to the writer of the article to get clarification, and I will report back here.

I still think Francis Beckwith had the best comment on Franky, stating that he has managed to have his icons and smash them too...

Let me point you all to the review of "Crazy for God" (Frank's first non-fiction book about his family) by Os Guinness. I can't find the full version on the web just now (maybe some of you sleuths can do it), but I remember reading it several years ago and concluding that Guinness got it just right.

Guinness knew Frank Schaeffer very well (best man at his wedding) and Francis and Edith also (lived in their home in Switzerland for three years). He remains an orthodox (small "o") and believing Christian, unlike his old friend.

If one cuts to the chase, Francis and Edith neglected Frank and felt guilty for it. This led to spoiling him, their only son. Frank reciprocated by manipulating his parents, wrapping them around his finger. Frank writes, "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."

Yes, the Guinness review is psycho-history, normally a discipline I despise, but I think he got it exactly right.

If you can find the full article (without making me join something), I'll buy you a medium sized cone at Bloomington's Dairy Queen or the Chocolate Moose.

I also came across Franky Schaeffer's response to Os Guinness's review, and Guinness's one-paragraph reply. They are both worth reading, too. Franky unwittingly confirms Guinness's criticism by responding with an ad hominem attack, making insinuations, complaining about criticism being unfair (without saying why) and saying that his sisters are on his side, not Guinness's (a doubtful claim).

Franky having self-destructed in his response, Guinness is smart enough to reply briefly and irenically.
though he fits in: "His portrait of his parents was wrong and destructive. It left me alternately grieved and outraged..." I'll save the Guinness reply as a model of great writing. It strikes just the right balance between toughness and tenderness, and by that makes a point the Baylyblog emphasizes: it's possible to condemn lovingly.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:HhR-FrNaj8IJ:www.booksandculture.com/articles/webexclusives/2008/march/mar3.html+oz+guinness+franky+schaeffer+respond&cd=17&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.com

My family was traveling through Switzerland in 1972, when I was but 22. At the time, I'd never heard of Francis Schaeffer, but my parents knew who they Schaeffers were, and almost on impulse, we drove up to L'Abri to pay them an unannouced visit. We (five of my immediate family members were together) were graciously welcomed to the Schaeffers' home, and served a dinner, during which time, and afterwards engaged in a most stimulating conversation (the specifics of which have been lost to me to the mists of time, but I remember being fascinated by the entire dialog). They then invited us to stay the night at their home. I do not remember if Franky was present that evening (he would have been around 20 at the time), but I will never forget the gracious hospitality that his parents extended to complete strangers. Their reception led me to later read a number of their books, of which "A Christian Manifesto" particularly impressed me. It is even more relevant today than it was when it was written, and I commend it to readers of this blog. In any case, if the parents had sins (and of course, they surely had some besetting ones), failure to extend hospitality was not among them.

You challenge me and encourage me to do what is good, Tim Bayly. Thanks.