As the son of Francis Schaeffer, Frank Schaeffer has been no stranger to the rigours of evangelical/fundamentalist Christianity. Francis believed he had the answers to the questions of the ages with his belief in fundamentalist doctrine and he was largely responsible for the rise of the Religious Right in American politics. As his son, Frank lived through and participated in the despicable intersection of religion and politics.
But with passing years came clarity and Frank has gone from the obnoxious assurance of fundamentalist religion to the quiet doubt and curiosity of a more open faith. As an author, film director, and blogger for the Huffington Post, Schaeffer’s life is a testimony that rings true for many of us who have found themselves on similar ground.
In his new book, Patience With God: Faith for People Who Don’t Like Religion (or Atheism), Schaeffer goes well beyond the typical pat answers of specious Christians who allude to Christianity as a “relationship, not a religion” and deconstructs the eager certainty, venomous literalism, and widespread insincerity that taints and has since formed the mould for the modern evangelical and fundamentalist movements.
Not content to merely strike at one side of the aisle, Schaeffer also volleys a fair-sized wad of equitable critique at many of the so-called New Atheists. He gears up harsh criticisms for Richard Dawkins, chastising him for his “self-serving compassion” and slogan-bearing T-shirt sales, and guts Bill Maher’s cowardly Religulous for asking softball, juvenile Sunday School questions of easy targets. Schaeffer also offers up a biting if simplistic critique of Christopher Hitchens and rounds off the torture-hungry Sam Harris in brief fashion.
But Patience With God is not a book about pegging down the “New Atheists” or stacking the odds in the favour of his particular Belief of Choice. Instead, this book is a war on the evil concept of certainty itself. In applauding Daniel Dennett and his brilliant Breaking the Spell, Schaeffer tilts his hand not as an argumentative pundit against all things atheist but rather a critic against a certain brand of, well, anything.
For Schaeffer, he believes that the brand of vitriolic “evangelism” from the “New Atheists” sells their overall message short and, further to the point, erodes any opportunity for unity among people of faith and people without faith.
As hard as Schaeffer might be on the “New Atheists,” he reserves the bulk of his bile for the evangelicals and fundamentalists. Targeting the likes of Rick Warren, Franklin Graham, John Hagee, and the two cretins behind the senseless Left Behind series of “books,” Schaeffer is on the money when he describes their hazardous conviction and criticizes their pursuit of profit and political pragmatism.
Article comments
1 - frank schaeffer
Thank you for the very kind review of my new book. I'm grateful. Best, Frank Schaeffer
2 - Vince Reimer
Is Frank Schaeffer certain that we should not be so certain? If so, he's contradicting his thesis. If not, why spend the money and time reading what you've indicated would seem offensive, when there is no pay off, no end to which we should strive, no "right" conclusion to draw.
God may be mysterious, but what he's said about our predicament and his solution is quite clear. I can't fault anyone for taking what God has said seriously and even believing above all things that it is correct. Perhaps the desire to be right is a human propensity and not just one of religious people. And perhaps it only seems malicious when wielded by malicious people and absent when held by gracious people.
Thanks for the heads-up though.
3 - Jordan Richardson
God may be mysterious, but what he's said about our predicament and his solution is quite clear.
Clear to whom? There are countless versions of what "God has said" and what his "solution" is, so it's hardly clear. Religion has been grasping at it since its inception, Vince, and each one believes that it is the so-called "Right Path."
Where does this sort of certainty get us? In my opinion, it leads to some very dangerous places.
While you may use semantical tricks to attempt to peg the concept of certainty, the fact of the matter is that none of us can be completely certain about God or what God "wants" or what his characteristics may be and so forth. Certainty is a dangerous thing when one group or individual claims to know what God wants.
Now you probably might argue that the bible tells us what God wants and what his solution is, but others would argue that the Qu'ran holds those messages and still others would argue for the validity of their Holy Book of Choice.
Who's right? And how do you prove it?
I can't fault anyone for taking what God has said seriously and even believing above all things that it is correct.
So you don't fault the Ft. Hood shooter in the instance that he believed Allah was calling him to carry out violence against innocent human beings? And you don't fault George W. Bush for believing Jesus called him into Iraq?
In their minds, they are taking what they believe God has said and they are taking it seriously - deadly seriously. They are believing, "above all things," that they are correct.
This is the danger of complete religious certainty and for claiming to know the will of God. As you said (and as I said), the desire to be right is a human propensity. Add the "rightness" of one's religious beliefs to the mix and toss in the cruelty of absolute certainty and I think you're dealing with something utterly toxic.
4 - JEC
It's easy to say that we can't know exactly what God's will is, and to be honest, it's an endless subject of study and conversation, but to eliminate absolutes leaves us in a very hopeless situation. Logic cannot be set apart when defining what is right and what is true.
The moment I slap you in the face, Jordan, you will be the first to stand up in defense of absolute rules by which I am to abide and that make my conduct wrong, as much as I may try to explain to you that in my mind, slapping you in the face is the right thing to do.
Nature itself is full of absolute laws, laws that if we were to each interpret the way we would like to have them interpreted would lead to individuals afraid of falling up into the sky!
Every night you make plans for the following day, not once considering that the sun might not come up, because you've chosen the comfort of trusting God's absolute laws, but attempt to live free of the ones that seem to bind you, not understanding that perfect freedom comes from perfect submission to His absolute laws.
5 - Jordan Richardson
Nothing included in this discussion or this book eliminates absolutes or the presence of truth or logic.
The moment I slap you in the face, Jordan, you will be the first to stand up in defense of absolute rules by which I am to abide and that make my conduct wrong, as much as I may try to explain to you that in my mind, slapping you in the face is the right thing to do.
Suppose you believe that by slapping me in the face, you are saving my soul. You are clearly, in the context of your worldview, acting "correctly" or being "right." You are acting in accordance with your beliefs, whether they be designed by a social contract, religious arrangement or by other variables.
Now while I can and certainly would suggest that slapping me in the face was "wrong" (I'd actually probably argue that it was "bad," but that's another distinction for another day), it certainly wouldn't make a bit of difference to you how "wrong" I thought you were. You were, after all, saving my soul by slapping me in the face.
Perspective is everything in your example, as it is in the argument of religious certainty. The faith of a Muslim can be as strong as the faith of a Christian, yet both in individuals would approach the world differently.
Who's wrong? And how you do know who's wrong?
Nature itself is full of absolute laws
Exactly. But our understanding of nature's laws are limited by our own understanding or worldview. While we can certainly say that gravity keeps our feet planted on the ground and while we can use science to investigate gravity, we are also learning new things each and every day about natural laws that cause scientists and researchers to be very, very careful when making absolute statements.
There is a very distinct difference between saying "as far as we know, nature works this way" and "I'm sure nature works this way because God says so."
Every night you make plans for the following day, not once considering that the sun might not come up, because you've chosen the comfort of trusting God's absolute laws
You attribute it to "God's absolute laws," but others do not. Others attribute the foundation on which we can make "daily plans" to nothing more than chance, while still others attribute it to other deities or other spiritual arrangements.
What you are doing, JEC, is making a rather tremendous logical leap from the concept of absolutism to the existence of one particular deity.
You assume that because absolutes exist (which again, nobody argued they didn't), one particular religious view must therefore exist.
The fact of the matter is that you accept your worldview by faith, not because you know for sure. We all do, in fact. This book suggests that we understand that the very concept of faith is something we come by with fear and trembling, with uncertainty, and with tolerance for others. Why? Because we're all in the same boat attempting to understand this world of ours.
There's a significant difference, as I'm sure you know, between understanding the absolute rationality of getting wet when you go swimming and the faithful assertion that God created the water that soaks you.
6 - Miriamfl
Mr. Schaeffer, I have thoroughly enjoyed reading your blog on Huffington Post and watching your interviews. I commend you for speaking the truth in particular with the evangelical christians. I was raised catholic but consider myself an agnostic. I have a few friends that are southern baptist and had the audasity to tell me that if I wasn't born again and accept Jesus as my savior I would not be welcomed through the gates of Heaven. My response has been that I am not arrogant enough to tell anyone that there is no god but that I also am not as arrogant as to say that god exist and Jesus is his son and only if you beleive this will you be welcomed into heaven. My next remark to them is that I might not be going to their heaven, but I will be going to my heaven. The heaven with a god that accepts good, loving if not perfect souls, souls that might pray to god even though not sure which god, souls that have had doubts or even no faith but tried to be a good caring human being, that's my heaven.
7 - Joe
Based on Schaeffer's ideas, how on earth does he have the slightest idea what Jesus said or what he represented? He has devolved into a puddle, but still wants to play at having a backbone.
8 - Susie
I have been a conservative, until I have exsperienced the hatred by the right wing, concerning homosexuality, my son is a fine gay man, and I know he was born that way, regardless of what others think. So I have many doubts now, I can no longer accept the hatred spoken by so many evangelicals. So as A Christian, I am left without a Church, the self righteous, ugliness, makes me sick, any suggestions,
9 - John Bunyan
I for one was deeply moved by "Patience of God". As an old priest of the (fundamentalist) Diocese of Sydney who delights also to be a long-time member of King's Chapel, Boston (and who has enjoyed visiting delightful Newportbury, walking up from the station), I for one would stand where Frank Schaeffer stands and am very grateful for what he has shared with us.
10 - jan
What if He is Love and all who love know Him whether they know it or not? Funny if after all the sermons and books and arguments and stuff it is that simple.