Why I Converted To Eastern Orthodoxy : Author Frank Shaeffer

[Jetavan]

Why I Converted To Eastern Orthodoxy : Author Frank Shaeffer

[PeterTheAleut]

Okay... What do you wish to discuss about this video?

[Timon]

A priest gave me this on DVD when I first met with him about potentially converting last year.  I found it helpful and interesting, but Im not really a huge Frank Shaeffer fan anymore.

[age234]

I know Bob Meyering, the interviewer. Good guy. I'd be personally more interested in the linked AFR interview with him than Frank Shaeffer, who strikes me as a kind of angry person, based on his articles I've read. Nonetheless, Frank has an interesting story. He's not someone I would personally direct potential converts to, however.

[Timon]

Yes, he certainly seems angry.  And I also dont care for how political hes gotten.  I just tune him out now.

[katherineofdixie]

I had never even heard of Frank or his dad until I converted to Orthodoxy.

[dzheremi]

I'm being baptized into Orthodoxy in two weeks (God willing) and I've still never heard of the guy! 

Interesting video, but I like this one from the related videos better.

[Ortho_cat]

I'm being baptized into Orthodoxy in two weeks (God willing) and I've still never heard of the guy! 

Interesting video, but I like this one from the related videos better.

i didn't much care for this interview. I found myself cringing too often.

[Agabus]

I'm being baptized into Orthodoxy in two weeks (God willing) and I've still never heard of the guy! 

Frank Schaffer is a moderately though not exceptionally talented artist. He wrote a critique of Evangelical art a decade before his conversion titled Addicted to Mediocrity.

Everything I have seen about the guy in recent years suggests his life is a constant and belated reaction to his parents, who -- for good or ill -- helped frame the terms of the evangelical culture war.

In recent years, Frank has gotten involved in the usual bourgeois liberal causes, which chafes some Orthodox.

I don't care for his work and think his politics are boring.

[Ortho_cat]

This interview is top-notch and thoroughly fascinating. Regardless of what he did later in his life, he is speaking truth of Orthodoxy here in a very articulate and well-presented form. He also presents it in a confident and considerate manner, paying mind not to offend listeners and possible inquiriers.

[Jetavan]

Okay... What do you wish to discuss about this video?

I think many Protestants-turned-Orthodox go through something like Schaeffer went through. Though, I could be wrong, and Schaeffer is an anomaly.

[Clemente]

It seems that Frank Schaeffer has left what could be called orthodox Christianity. http://www.theird.org/page.aspx?pid=2086

"According to Schaeffer, we are not “stuck with the stupidity of Christianity,” but are free to create our own conception of God, reality, and morality".

I personally feel little in communion with Frank, though I pray God will have mercy on us both.

[Peter J]

I know Bob Meyering, the interviewer. Good guy. I'd be personally more interested in the linked AFR interview with him than Frank Shaeffer, who strikes me as a kind of angry person, based on his articles I've read. Nonetheless, Frank has an interesting story. He's not someone I would personally direct potential converts to, however.

I might.

[Shiny]

I liked his father much better.

[dzheremi]

It seems to me after reading the article linked by Clemente that this Schaeffer guy is more interested in politics and selling his books than God. No wonder he left Christianity, or made his own version of it that is more in keeping with his political views.

So many get tripped up this way. It's sad. Amma Syncletica wins again...

[age234]

It seems that Frank Schaeffer has left what could be called orthodox Christianity. http://www.theird.org/page.aspx?pid=2086

"According to Schaeffer, we are not “stuck with the stupidity of Christianity,” but are free to create our own conception of God, reality, and morality".

I personally feel little in communion with Frank, though I pray God will have mercy on us both.

Interesting. I can't decide if he's being colorful to rebel against evangelicalism or if he is speaking at face value.

Either way, it's sad. I wonder if he realizes his statements make him sound like an overgrown child.

[serb1389]

I liked his father much better.

i've met a lot of people who feel the same way.  i'm one of them. 

[Gorazd]

According to the link, he still seems to be a member of the Church.

Let us not claim the contrary until he either publicly renounces Orthodoxy or is anathemized, God forbid.

We are all struggling in some way (and anyone who claims he isn't is just lying to himself) and the Church is the hospital for our souls and bodies.

[Peter J]

I liked his father much better.

i've met a lot of people who feel the same way.  i'm one of them. 

I tried to thinking of a good multiple personality disorder joke I could make about you meeting yourself, but I drew a blank. 

[augustin717]

I'm being baptized into Orthodoxy in two weeks (God willing) and I've still never heard of the guy! 

Frank Schaffer is a moderately though not exceptionally talented artist. He wrote a critique of Evangelical art a decade before his conversion titled Addicted to Mediocrity.

Everything I have seen about the guy in recent years suggests his life is a constant and belated reaction to his parents, who -- for good or ill -- helped frame the terms of the evangelical culture war.

In recent years, Frank has gotten involved in the usual bourgeois liberal causes, which chafes some Orthodox.

I don't care for his work and think his politics are boring.

Yeah, i wish too his politics were truly radical, instead of merely liberal. But, come on, most Christian public voices around are only known for defending atrocious stuff. So, compared to those, he's much better. Plus making fun of evangelicals is ok; it makes them feel like they are persecuted because of jeezus

[dzheremi]

According to the link, he still seems to be a member of the Church.

Let us not claim the contrary until he either publicly renounces Orthodoxy or is anathemized, God forbid.

We are all struggling in some way (and anyone who claims he isn't is just lying to himself) and the Church is the hospital for our souls and bodies.

This is a really good point, and I am sorry for posting as I did earlier. I am a bit jaded regarding such public about-face statements (I have seen way too many people implode, for many reasons), but this is no excuse. I hope for his own sake and the sake of those who follow his writings that he is receiving counsel from a dedicated spiritual father, as statements such as those in the article are cause for concern, if they are indeed representative of his current mindset and the teachings in his books.

[Benjamin the Red]

I'm not a huge fan of Schaeffer, but that's mostly because of his presentation. I don't keep up with him, and some of what was posted above seems to hint that his theology is a bit funky now, though I'd have to look into it more to really give an opinion.

Unlike a lot of folks here, I usually agree with his politics, though I generally dislike political people, and he's certainly too politically-minded for my liking, lol.

[Ortho_cat]

i thought the OP wanted to talk about the video. does anyone have any comments/criticisms about the video in particular?

[Benjamin the Red]

i thought the OP wanted to talk about the video. does anyone have any comments/criticisms about the video in particular?

I really enjoyed it. I thought it was an honest interview. Schaeffer didn't sugar-coat what he thought, but he wasn't mean, either. I appreciated that, and would probably recommend it to some folks.

[Peter J]

It seems that Frank Schaeffer has left what could be called orthodox Christianity. http://www.theird.org/page.aspx?pid=2086

"According to Schaeffer, we are not “stuck with the stupidity of Christianity,” but are free to create our own conception of God, reality, and morality".

I personally feel little in communion with Frank, though I pray God will have mercy on us both.

Hmmm ... that article does contain a lot of bits and pieces of quotes. (It always annoys me when journalists do that.) Still, even without knowing his full statements, it definitely sounds like he said some pretty weird stuff.

Another one is

Schaeffer believes that “the God of the Bible [is] distinct from any deity that might be out there, he, she or it.”

[Iconodule]

A few years back I heard his interview with Terry Gross, and he struck me as an agnostic.

[Jetavan]

It seems that Frank Schaeffer has left what could be called orthodox Christianity. http://www.theird.org/page.aspx?pid=2086

"According to Schaeffer, we are not “stuck with the stupidity of Christianity,” but are free to create our own conception of God, reality, and morality".

Frank hasn't left Orthodox Christianity. When he speaks of the "stupidity of Christianity", he's referring to a Christianity based upon the privileging of reason and upon the idea that salvation is the acceptance of a set of rational statements. Schaeffer's Christianity (Orthodoxy) is a Christianity based upon the acknowledgement of the ultimate poverty of reason (and, thus, of "certainty" or mere "belief," in any "rational" statement) and salvation as a whole-bodily process that includes the mind and goes-beyond/under/penetrates-through it.

[age234]

We are all struggling in some way (and anyone who claims he isn't is just lying to himself) and the Church is the hospital for our souls and bodies.

True, but not all of us inject ourselves into the public conversation while we're struggling. He should deal with his bitterness in private, not air his dirty laundry before the world for decades on end.

[dzheremi]

Decades? Is this something he has been doing for decades?

[age234]

Decades? Is this something he has been doing for decades?

I don't know if he's been consistently virulent, but he's been outspoken since the 90s at least. That video interview is pushing 20 years I'd wager.

[Justin Kissel]

We are all struggling in some way (and anyone who claims he isn't is just lying to himself) and the Church is the hospital for our souls and bodies.

True, but not all of us inject ourselves into the public conversation while we're struggling. He should deal with his bitterness in private, not air his dirty laundry before the world for decades on end.

Even Asteriktos needs a role model to look up to, to honor, to emulate!

[JamesRottnek]

I'm being baptized into Orthodoxy in two weeks (God willing) and I've still never heard of the guy! 

Frank Schaffer is a moderately though not exceptionally talented artist. He wrote a critique of Evangelical art a decade before his conversion titled Addicted to Mediocrity.

Everything I have seen about the guy in recent years suggests his life is a constant and belated reaction to his parents, who -- for good or ill -- helped frame the terms of the evangelical culture war.

In recent years, Frank has gotten involved in the usual bourgeois liberal causes, which chafes some Orthodox.

I don't care for his work and think his politics are boring.

Part of the objection of some Orthodox to him is his support for legal abortion.  In fact, that is the major issue that those Orthodox who I've spoken with about Schaeffer have pointed out and talked about. 

But yeah, reading his memoir, he seems to have a lot of unresolved issues with his parents - who I was dismayed to see the, sometimes brutal, attack on (especially given the fact that his father is deceased and unable to defend himself - and his memoir certainly conveys a great deal of anger.

[Timon]

Decades? Is this something he has been doing for decades?

I don't know if he's been consistently virulent, but he's been outspoken since the 90s at least. That video interview is pushing 20 years I'd wager.

yup. and he probably has a couple decades left in him too.

[Peter J]

It seems that Frank Schaeffer has left what could be called orthodox Christianity. http://www.theird.org/page.aspx?pid=2086

"According to Schaeffer, we are not “stuck with the stupidity of Christianity,” but are free to create our own conception of God, reality, and morality".

Frank hasn't left Orthodox Christianity. When he speaks of the "stupidity of Christianity", he's referring to a Christianity based upon the privileging of reason and upon the idea that salvation is the acceptance of a set of rational statements. Schaeffer's Christianity (Orthodoxy) is a Christianity based upon the acknowledgement of the ultimate poverty of reason (and, thus, of "certainty" or mere "belief," in any "rational" statement) and salvation as a whole-bodily process that includes the mind and goes-beyond/under/penetrates-through it.

On the recent thread "Catholic vs Christian" we discussed how some Catholics don't like to call themselves Christian. Schaeffer seems to be an example of a similar phenomenon among Orthodox.

[DavidH]

It seems that Frank Schaeffer has left what could be called orthodox Christianity. http://www.theird.org/page.aspx?pid=2086

"According to Schaeffer, we are not “stuck with the stupidity of Christianity,” but are free to create our own conception of God, reality, and morality".

Frank hasn't left Orthodox Christianity. When he speaks of the "stupidity of Christianity", he's referring to a Christianity based upon the privileging of reason and upon the idea that salvation is the acceptance of a set of rational statements. Schaeffer's Christianity (Orthodoxy) is a Christianity based upon the acknowledgement of the ultimate poverty of reason (and, thus, of "certainty" or mere "belief," in any "rational" statement) and salvation as a whole-bodily process that includes the mind and goes-beyond/under/penetrates-through it.

Reading his comments on the inspired Scriptures as being "full of dumb stuff" and that it was written by "bronze-age misogynists" to justify their mistreatment of women goes way beyond apophaticism, it is naked disdain.

Add to this his comments about the "stupidity of Christianity" and our freedom to make up our own perception of God, beliefs, and morality and then it really becomes problematic.

He may show up in an Orthodox parish on Sundays but by what stretch of the imagination can he still be considered an Orthodox believer?

[Jetavan]

Add to this his comments about the "stupidity of Christianity" and our freedom to make up our own perception of God, beliefs, and morality and then it really becomes problematic.

I believe the part about the freedom to make up our own perception of God, etc., was an editorial interpretation of Frank, not a direct quote from Frank. In any event, I'd rather comment on Frank's quotes if I can see the total speech -- which, right now, seems more like a severe critique of evangelical scriptural fundamentalism, and an implicit argument for Orthodox apophaticism.

[DavidH]

Add to this his comments about the "stupidity of Christianity" and our freedom to make up our own perception of God, beliefs, and morality and then it really becomes problematic.

I believe the part about the freedom to make up our own perception of God, etc., was an editorial interpretation of Frank, not a direct quote from Frank. In any event, I'd rather comment on Frank's quotes if I can see the total speech -- which, right now, seems more like a severe critique of evangelical scriptural fundamentalism, and an implicit argument for Orthodox apophaticism.

I appreciate that you are giving him the benefit of the doubt but he says the same type of things regularly in his Huffpost articles if you want to check those out.

[Jetavan]

Add to this his comments about the "stupidity of Christianity" and our freedom to make up our own perception of God, beliefs, and morality and then it really becomes problematic.

I believe the part about the freedom to make up our own perception of God, etc., was an editorial interpretation of Frank, not a direct quote from Frank. In any event, I'd rather comment on Frank's quotes if I can see the total speech -- which, right now, seems more like a severe critique of evangelical scriptural fundamentalism, and an implicit argument for Orthodox apophaticism.

I appreciate that you are giving him the benefit of the doubt but he says the same type of things regularly in his Huffpost articles if you want to check those out.

Yes, I've read them all, and would still make the same points.

[Peter J]

Reading his comments on the inspired Scriptures as being "full of dumb stuff" and that it was written by "bronze-age misogynists" to justify their mistreatment of women goes way beyond apophaticism, it is naked disdain.

Some people are highly suspicious of anything that's common to most or all Christians. I'm reminded of one time I was watching the show "Web of Faith" on EWTN; in one email a Catholic mentioned having been to a Catholic wake-service which included some reading from the bible. Her question was, Why couldn't they say the rosary rather than this "more protestant" way of doing it?

(Fr. Trigilio's started off his response by saying that she ought to be a bit more ecumenical, and not call Scripture readings "protestant". I said to myself "Ecumenical? That's funny, I would have said she ought to be a bit more Catholic!")

[DavidH]

Add to this his comments about the "stupidity of Christianity" and our freedom to make up our own perception of God, beliefs, and morality and then it really becomes problematic.

I believe the part about the freedom to make up our own perception of God, etc., was an editorial interpretation of Frank, not a direct quote from Frank. In any event, I'd rather comment on Frank's quotes if I can see the total speech -- which, right now, seems more like a severe critique of evangelical scriptural fundamentalism, and an implicit argument for Orthodox apophaticism.

I appreciate that you are giving him the benefit of the doubt but he says the same type of things regularly in his Huffpost articles if you want to check those out.

Yes, I've read them all, and would still make the same points.

I don't know how to respond to that except to say St. Nicholas slapped Arius for spewing as much error as Frank does.

Let's not be so intent on not judging that we lose our discernment which Scripture also commands.

[Jetavan]

It seems that Frank Schaeffer has left what could be called orthodox Christianity. http://www.theird.org/page.aspx?pid=2086

"According to Schaeffer, we are not “stuck with the stupidity of Christianity,” but are free to create our own conception of God, reality, and morality".

Frank hasn't left Orthodox Christianity. When he speaks of the "stupidity of Christianity", he's referring to a Christianity based upon the privileging of reason and upon the idea that salvation is the acceptance of a set of rational statements. Schaeffer's Christianity (Orthodoxy) is a Christianity based upon the acknowledgement of the ultimate poverty of reason (and, thus, of "certainty" or mere "belief," in any "rational" statement) and salvation as a whole-bodily process that includes the mind and goes-beyond/under/penetrates-through it.

Reading his comments on the inspired Scriptures as being "full of dumb stuff" and that it was written by "bronze-age misogynists" to justify their mistreatment of women goes way beyond apophaticism, it is naked disdain.

In his reaction against his upbringing, where scripture was held in literalistic, inerrantist ways, Frank may go too far in the other direction, now and then.

[Peter J]

he says the same type of things regularly in his Huffpost articles if you want to check those out.

I haven't seen those. Do you have a link?

[Opus118]

Add to this his comments about the "stupidity of Christianity" and our freedom to make up our own perception of God, beliefs, and morality and then it really becomes problematic.

I believe the part about the freedom to make up our own perception of God, etc., was an editorial interpretation of Frank, not a direct quote from Frank. In any event, I'd rather comment on Frank's quotes if I can see the total speech -- which, right now, seems more like a severe critique of evangelical scriptural fundamentalism, and an implicit argument for Orthodox apophaticism.

I do not know what he said. I have pretty much read most of what he has written that is free that does not deal strictly with politics (he is a curiosity to me, I have been following him since he was an Iraq war defender). I think the editorial interpretation was from a blog of his this or last year. I did not come away with the impression given in the link. And any piece of writing that starts out with Franky, I consider a hit piece with questionable value. As far as I know he is still anti-abortion and rails against Roe V Wade. I think his emphasis has been, that given RvW exists, we would be more effective in ending abortion by putting our money and resources where our mouth is. Creating the social services necessary to prevent pregnancy and to care for the mother once the pregnancy has occurred. This is a steep cost and I think a tax on alcohol is a good way to go and perhaps movies and TV shows that promote thoughtless behavior.

[DavidH]

It seems that Frank Schaeffer has left what could be called orthodox Christianity. http://www.theird.org/page.aspx?pid=2086

"According to Schaeffer, we are not “stuck with the stupidity of Christianity,” but are free to create our own conception of God, reality, and morality".

Frank hasn't left Orthodox Christianity. When he speaks of the "stupidity of Christianity", he's referring to a Christianity based upon the privileging of reason and upon the idea that salvation is the acceptance of a set of rational statements. Schaeffer's Christianity (Orthodoxy) is a Christianity based upon the acknowledgement of the ultimate poverty of reason (and, thus, of "certainty" or mere "belief," in any "rational" statement) and salvation as a whole-bodily process that includes the mind and goes-beyond/under/penetrates-through it.

Reading his comments on the inspired Scriptures as being "full of dumb stuff" and that it was written by "bronze-age misogynists" to justify their mistreatment of women goes way beyond apophaticism, it is naked disdain.

In his reaction against his upbringing, where scripture was held in literalistic, inerrantist ways, Frank may go too far in the other direction, now and then.

I agree, Jetavan, although I would say he completely leaves Orthodoxy when he says Scripture was written by Bronze-Age misogynists trying to justify their sins. The Church of the Apostles agrees with St. Peter who said "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost".

Peter: I don't have links in front of me but if you go to Huffington Post and look up Schaeffer's articles you won't have to read very far before you wind up knee-deep in otherdoxy.

[Jetavan]

It seems that Frank Schaeffer has left what could be called orthodox Christianity. http://www.theird.org/page.aspx?pid=2086

"According to Schaeffer, we are not “stuck with the stupidity of Christianity,” but are free to create our own conception of God, reality, and morality".

Frank hasn't left Orthodox Christianity. When he speaks of the "stupidity of Christianity", he's referring to a Christianity based upon the privileging of reason and upon the idea that salvation is the acceptance of a set of rational statements. Schaeffer's Christianity (Orthodoxy) is a Christianity based upon the acknowledgement of the ultimate poverty of reason (and, thus, of "certainty" or mere "belief," in any "rational" statement) and salvation as a whole-bodily process that includes the mind and goes-beyond/under/penetrates-through it.

Reading his comments on the inspired Scriptures as being "full of dumb stuff" and that it was written by "bronze-age misogynists" to justify their mistreatment of women goes way beyond apophaticism, it is naked disdain.

In his reaction against his upbringing, where scripture was held in literalistic, inerrantist ways, Frank may go too far in the other direction, now and then.

I agree, Jetavan, although I would say he completely leaves Orthodoxy when he says Scripture was written by Bronze-Age misogynists trying to justify their sins. The Church of the Apostles agrees with St. Peter who said "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost".

Are the two mutually incompatible?

[Schultz]

I must be one of the few people who a) doesn't get why Schaeffer is well known (his writing is terrible) and b) doesn't care if he's Orthodox or not.

On that matter, "conversion stories" as a genre are incredibly boring.

[dzheremi]

It's not just you, Schultz. I just found out about the guy and I'm already bored of him. This sort of thing always happens, so even his apparent meltdown is boring. The RCs did it to Father Corapi, who I never liked (didn't hate, but didn't understand all the fawning over), only to find out that he too was human. Ho hum.

P.S.- Isn't writing books/blogs/movies/whatever about their conversions the bread and butter of the convert? I guess I should start a blog or something...could get a book deal out of it, if I play my cards right. 

[DavidH]

It seems that Frank Schaeffer has left what could be called orthodox Christianity. http://www.theird.org/page.aspx?pid=2086

"According to Schaeffer, we are not “stuck with the stupidity of Christianity,” but are free to create our own conception of God, reality, and morality".

Frank hasn't left Orthodox Christianity. When he speaks of the "stupidity of Christianity", he's referring to a Christianity based upon the privileging of reason and upon the idea that salvation is the acceptance of a set of rational statements. Schaeffer's Christianity (Orthodoxy) is a Christianity based upon the acknowledgement of the ultimate poverty of reason (and, thus, of "certainty" or mere "belief," in any "rational" statement) and salvation as a whole-bodily process that includes the mind and goes-beyond/under/penetrates-through it.

Reading his comments on the inspired Scriptures as being "full of dumb stuff" and that it was written by "bronze-age misogynists" to justify their mistreatment of women goes way beyond apophaticism, it is naked disdain.

In his reaction against his upbringing, where scripture was held in literalistic, inerrantist ways, Frank may go too far in the other direction, now and then.

I agree, Jetavan, although I would say he completely leaves Orthodoxy when he says Scripture was written by Bronze-Age misogynists trying to justify their sins. The Church of the Apostles agrees with St. Peter who said "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost".

Are the two mutually incompatible?

Yes, justifying one's sins is mutually incompatible with being a holy man speaking by the Holy Spirit.

[Orthodox11]

On that matter, "conversion stories" as a genre are incredibly boring.

Minus a few from the Synaxarion, I've yet to read a single one that was interesting.

[Jetavan]

It seems that Frank Schaeffer has left what could be called orthodox Christianity. http://www.theird.org/page.aspx?pid=2086

"According to Schaeffer, we are not “stuck with the stupidity of Christianity,” but are free to create our own conception of God, reality, and morality".

Frank hasn't left Orthodox Christianity. When he speaks of the "stupidity of Christianity", he's referring to a Christianity based upon the privileging of reason and upon the idea that salvation is the acceptance of a set of rational statements. Schaeffer's Christianity (Orthodoxy) is a Christianity based upon the acknowledgement of the ultimate poverty of reason (and, thus, of "certainty" or mere "belief," in any "rational" statement) and salvation as a whole-bodily process that includes the mind and goes-beyond/under/penetrates-through it.

Reading his comments on the inspired Scriptures as being "full of dumb stuff" and that it was written by "bronze-age misogynists" to justify their mistreatment of women goes way beyond apophaticism, it is naked disdain.

In his reaction against his upbringing, where scripture was held in literalistic, inerrantist ways, Frank may go too far in the other direction, now and then.

I agree, Jetavan, although I would say he completely leaves Orthodoxy when he says Scripture was written by Bronze-Age misogynists trying to justify their sins. The Church of the Apostles agrees with St. Peter who said "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost".

Are the two mutually incompatible?

Yes, justifying one's sins is mutually incompatible with being a holy man speaking by the Holy Spirit.

In Matthew 19, Jesus refers to a certain Mosaic commandment that could be seen as giving men an unfair advantage over women, and yet Jesus does not deny that Moses was still inspired by God:

(7 ) “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
(8 ) Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. (9 ) I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

I think there's a difference between being "inspired by God" and being "absolutely inerrant": the former does not necessarily include the latter, but it might.

[DavidH]

It seems that Frank Schaeffer has left what could be called orthodox Christianity. http://www.theird.org/page.aspx?pid=2086

"According to Schaeffer, we are not “stuck with the stupidity of Christianity,” but are free to create our own conception of God, reality, and morality".

Frank hasn't left Orthodox Christianity. When he speaks of the "stupidity of Christianity", he's referring to a Christianity based upon the privileging of reason and upon the idea that salvation is the acceptance of a set of rational statements. Schaeffer's Christianity (Orthodoxy) is a Christianity based upon the acknowledgement of the ultimate poverty of reason (and, thus, of "certainty" or mere "belief," in any "rational" statement) and salvation as a whole-bodily process that includes the mind and goes-beyond/under/penetrates-through it.

Reading his comments on the inspired Scriptures as being "full of dumb stuff" and that it was written by "bronze-age misogynists" to justify their mistreatment of women goes way beyond apophaticism, it is naked disdain.

In his reaction against his upbringing, where scripture was held in literalistic, inerrantist ways, Frank may go too far in the other direction, now and then.

I agree, Jetavan, although I would say he completely leaves Orthodoxy when he says Scripture was written by Bronze-Age misogynists trying to justify their sins. The Church of the Apostles agrees with St. Peter who said "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost".

Are the two mutually incompatible?

Yes, justifying one's sins is mutually incompatible with being a holy man speaking by the Holy Spirit.

In Matthew 19, Jesus refers to a certain Mosaic commandment that could be seen as giving men an unfair advantage over women, and yet Jesus does not deny that Moses was still inspired by God:

(7 ) “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
(8 ) Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. (9 ) I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

I think there's a difference between being "inspired by God" and being "absolutely inerrant": the former does not necessarily include the latter, but it might.

Jetavan, there is no end to "foolish controversies" (2 Tim. 2:23, Titus 3:9) and we are commanded to avoid them.

If you decide to take the low view of Scripture which Schaeffer espouses and say it is unfair to women or any other group I can't stop you. As for the questions you asked, consult the patristic commentaries written by those whom we consider pillars of the Church. They should be more authoritative for you than anything I, Frank, or any rationalist theologian has to say.

I would have to abandon common sense to defend Schaeffer's current views and try to align them with the Faith defended by the Fathers. He would have been called to repentance rather than coddled in an age that was more concerned with being faithful than clever as our own age seems to be.

[Gorazd]

Part of the objection of some Orthodox to him is his support for legal abortion.  In fact, that is the major issue that those Orthodox who I've spoken with about Schaeffer have pointed out and talked about. 

I am not sure, what Schaeffer said exactly on that issue, but I want to make one thing very clear:
Orthodoxy is not a political doctrine. In Orthodoxy, we believe that abortion is the killing of a human being. But whether including the procedure in the state's penal law is the right way to fight it is a question that is not subject to church dogma.

And please, if someone has left Orthodoxy, let the diocesan bishop declare it. It is not up to us to kick people out of the Church.

We may and should discuss problematic teaching, but shouting "heretic" or "apostate" is something that very serious, which should not be done as lightly as some do here. Especially considering that the person mentioned here is a layman, expressing his personal views, and neither a member of the clergy nor an official catechist or whatever... the Orthodox Church is for the salvation of all mankind, it need not only consist of apologists.

[DavidH]

Part of the objection of some Orthodox to him is his support for legal abortion.  In fact, that is the major issue that those Orthodox who I've spoken with about Schaeffer have pointed out and talked about. 

I am not sure, what Schaeffer said exactly on that issue, but I want to make one thing very clear:
Orthodoxy is not a political doctrine. In Orthodoxy, we believe that abortion is the killing of a human being. But whether including the procedure in the state's penal law is the right way to fight it is a question that is not subject to church dogma.

And please, if someone has left Orthodoxy, let the diocesan bishop declare it. It is not up to us to kick people out of the Church.

We may and should discuss problematic teaching, but shouting "heretic" or "apostate" is something that very serious, which should not be done as lightly as some do here. Especially considering that the person mentioned here is a layman, expressing his personal views, and neither a member of the clergy nor an official catechist or whatever... the Orthodox Church is for the salvation of all mankind, it need not only consist of apologists.

I agree with all that you said, Gorazd, with the caveat that if a well-known spokesperson for Orthodoxy or even clergy start teaching things at odds with the faith then the Faithful are fullfilling their vocation by "answering a fool according to his folly." If the Faithful spoke out against the bishops after Florence, we need not be shy about contradicting Frank Schaeffer.

It is beyond any of us to know whether Schaeffer is still Orthodox in his heart and his standing before God is known only to Him, but knowing whether the positions someone takes are Orthodox or not is not normally a great mystery.

[Gorazd]

but knowing whether the positions someone takes are Orthodox or not is not normally a great mystery.

We must still be careful. What did he say exactly, what did the editor add, or quote him out of context? What did he mean and intend?

We also must be careful not to mix Orthodoxy with politics (as I said, believing Orthodoxy is a sin doesn't oblige you to believe that you must take political action to outlaw it) or with Protestant doctrine. Indeed, Orthodoxy teaches that the Bible was written by human beings and not every word of it is absolutely inerrant, even though they were inspired by God.

[DavidH]

but knowing whether the positions someone takes are Orthodox or not is not normally a great mystery.

We must still be careful. What did he say exactly, what did the editor add, or quote him out of context? What did he mean and intend?

We also must be careful not to mix Orthodoxy with politics (as I said, believing Orthodoxy is a sin doesn't oblige you to believe that you must take political action to outlaw it) or with Protestant doctrine. Indeed, Orthodoxy teaches that the Bible was written by human beings and not every word of it is absolutely inerrant, even though they were inspired by God.

Agreed- we must be careful, in this case the articles comments are completely consistent with articles I have read by Schaeffer himself so I am no reason to believe he was misquoted.

Agreed- both Liberal and Conservatives need to be careful that their Faith informs their stand on the issues rather than their political preferences influencing their Faith.

Agreed- not every word of Scripture is inerrant (or there would be no textual variations between manuscripts) but every teaching is inerrant. This is also the Faith of the Church. One of Schaeffer's contentions is that much of the moral law in the Bible is really made up by men who wanted to justify their oppression of others. It is not to say that every word of Scripture is inerrant to recognize that such a view has no place in the Church of the Fathers. It is a private interpretation completely at variance with the Fathers.

It is easier for me to believe that Schaeffer's own issues cause him to find the Bible flawed than to believe that the Bible is flawed because it does not agree with Schaeffer and other modernizing moralists.

[Peter J]

I must be one of the few people who a) doesn't get why Schaeffer is well known (his writing is terrible) and b) doesn't care if he's Orthodox or not.

On that matter, "conversion stories" as a genre are incredibly boring.

As dzheremi said, it isn't just you. I've been wondering why so much attention gets paid to Schaffer. (And I don't mean on this forum.)

It's not just you, Schultz. I just found out about the guy and I'm already bored of him. This sort of thing always happens, so even his apparent meltdown is boring. The RCs did it to Father Corapi, who I never liked (didn't hate, but didn't understand all the fawning over), only to find out that he too was human. Ho hum.

I can see the comparison in terms of attention paid to them, but Corapi hasn't said the kind of things Schaffer has.

[dzheremi]

Well yeah, I didn't mean that Fr. Corapi had, just that from what I can tell they both seem to be darlings of certain segments of their respective communions, and have in common the inevitable fall from grace that comes with that. Thank God nobody likes me or cares what I have to say (not even me ), else the same would happen to me!

[Peter J]

but knowing whether the positions someone takes are Orthodox or not is not normally a great mystery.

We must still be careful. What did he say exactly, what did the editor add, or quote him out of context? What did he mean and intend?

Here's one thing he said:

As I argue in my book, Patience With God: Faith for People Who Don't Like Religion (or Atheism), maybe if there is a God, or if Jesus spoke truth about how we are to care for others or if the Light of Love in my life has taught me anything, then the best thing a believer in any actual God can do is to admit that a lot of the Bible is hate-filled blasphemy.

:emoticon:

[DavidH]

Here is a quote of Schaeffer's view of the God who gave us the the Bible. After declaring that his Mom was "much nicer than her God", he goes on:  “Mom struggled to make her ‘God’ kindly. But it’s tough to rehabilitate the judgmental misanthropic Spirit of Divine Pettiness who commands no beard trimming, ‘lest the land vomit you also out when you defile it”.


An Orthodox review of the salient chapter from, "Sex, Mom, and God". There are some more doozies there.

http://resurrectedorthodoxy.blogspot.com/2011/07/frank-schaeffer-part-3.html

[Opus118]

Here is a quote of Schaeffer's view of the God who gave us the the Bible. After declaring that his Mom was "much nicer than her God", he goes on:  “Mom struggled to make her ‘God’ kindly. But it’s tough to rehabilitate the judgmental misanthropic Spirit of Divine Pettiness who commands no beard trimming, ‘lest the land vomit you also out when you defile it”.


An Orthodox review of the salient chapter from, "Sex, Mom, and God". There are some more doozies there.

http://resurrectedorthodoxy.blogspot.com/2011/07/frank-schaeffer-part-3.html

Hi David, I thought this was some protestant thing which I know little about except what I read here. What I am referring to here is "her God". Are possessive adjectives other than "our" commonly used amongst protestants? If not, could he be referring to his mother's conception of God?

Thanks for the link, I will take a longer look at it although I have no interest in his biographical books. For the record I do not care for his sense of humor which borders on ridicule, which I abhor.

[Alveus Lacuna]

On that matter, "conversion stories" as a genre are incredibly boring.

What's your story?

[Clemente]

Here is a quote of Schaeffer's view of the God who gave us the the Bible. After declaring that his Mom was "much nicer than her God", he goes on:  “Mom struggled to make her ‘God’ kindly. But it’s tough to rehabilitate the judgmental misanthropic Spirit of Divine Pettiness who commands no beard trimming, ‘lest the land vomit you also out when you defile it”.


An Orthodox review of the salient chapter from, "Sex, Mom, and God". There are some more doozies there.

http://resurrectedorthodoxy.blogspot.com/2011/07/frank-schaeffer-part-3.html

Wow. If I had read those quotes and then read Orthodox posters here who cite Schaeffer as an example of Orthodox apophaticism, I would never have become Orthodox. Sorry, those statements are absolutely outrageous and offensive. If I ever say such rubbish, I would hope my Christian brothers and my Spiritual Advisor would keep me accountable, referring me to King David's prayer: "Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in your sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer."

St Nicolas slapped Arius for a lot less...

[Justin Kissel]

St Nicolas slapped Arius for a lot less...

What did St. Nicholas slap Arius for?

[Clemente]

St Nicolas slapped Arius for a lot less...

What did St. Nicholas slap Arius for?

Arianism...

Arius, for all his heresy, at least spoke respectfully of God the Father.

[Peter J]

Wow. If I had read those quotes and then read Orthodox posters here who cite Schaeffer as an example of Orthodox apophaticism, I would never have become Orthodox.

I don't know what he is exactly (I'm certainly not going to presume to say whether he's still Orthodox or not), except that I can safely say he's a shock jock.

[Justin Kissel]

St Nicolas slapped Arius for a lot less...

What did St. Nicholas slap Arius for?

Arianism...

Arius, for all his heresy, at least spoke respectfully of God the Father.

That doesn't really tell me anything.   What was the Arianism of Arius? What specific beliefs got St. Nicholas all riled up?

[DavidH]

St Nicolas slapped Arius for a lot less...

What did St. Nicholas slap Arius for?

Arianism...

Arius, for all his heresy, at least spoke respectfully of God the Father.

That doesn't really tell me anything.   What was the Arianism of Arius? What specific beliefs got St. Nicholas all riled up?

Objection: You're leading the witness.

Arius spoke blasphemy concerning the nature of the Son but respected the Father and the Spirit as well as the Scriptures; Schaeffer is speaking blasphemy concerning the entire Godhead and His Scriptures. I did not intend to say anything more technical than that.

[DavidH]

Here is a quote of Schaeffer's view of the God who gave us the the Bible. After declaring that his Mom was "much nicer than her God", he goes on:  “Mom struggled to make her ‘God’ kindly. But it’s tough to rehabilitate the judgmental misanthropic Spirit of Divine Pettiness who commands no beard trimming, ‘lest the land vomit you also out when you defile it”.


An Orthodox review of the salient chapter from, "Sex, Mom, and God". There are some more doozies there.

http://resurrectedorthodoxy.blogspot.com/2011/07/frank-schaeffer-part-3.html

Hi David, I thought this was some protestant thing which I know little about except what I read here. What I am referring to here is "her God". Are possessive adjectives other than "our" commonly used amongst protestants? If not, could he be referring to his mother's conception of God?

Thanks for the link, I will take a longer look at it although I have no interest in his biographical books. For the record I do not care for his sense of humor which borders on ridicule, which I abhor.

I agree with you, Opus. Every book he writes seems to take a scorched earth policy against those who disagree with whatever his current position happens to be. The interview that opened this post is the best I have ever seen him in discussing his views.

As for phrases like "her God", I don't remember anyone ever using third person phrases like this. I think it is used by Schaeffer to put some distance between himself and the Christian conception of God while also hinting that everyone's concept of God does not come from any Revelation but is purely subjective. I have also often heard New Agey types use it this way and perhaps for the same reasons.

However, I often heard phrases like "My God" especially when people were claiming promises from Scripture for themselves. Even though the way they do it is a bit odd for Orthodox at least this phrase is more Biblical as we often see in the Psalms.

[Justin Kissel]

Objection: You're leading the witness.

Arius spoke blasphemy concerning the nature of the Son but respected the Father and the Spirit as well as the Scriptures; Schaeffer is speaking blasphemy concerning the entire Godhead and His Scriptures. I did not intend to say anything more technical than that.

Now we're starting to get going here (with this p-ssing contest). Let me play! I'm going to argue that if Jesus is merely a created being, albeit a divinized one, that Christianity is useless and meaningless. A created being can't save us, thus Christianity would be a scam. All of it. Schaeffer, on the other hand, is just a sincere seeker, torn because he feels like Christianity is the best option, the truth even, yet there is obviously disgusting stuff in the Bible that needs to be faced up to. Arius was thus much worse. Ok, your turn.

[JamesR]

From what I have heard, isn't Frank Schaeffer sort of a -censored- who is always dissing his father and parents because they raised him Evangelical? Wait, that sounds really familiar. OMG, Frank Shaeffer is the future me Not entirely the perfect Orthodox role model.



Blasphemous use of the Lord's name removed from post  -PtA

[DavidH]

Objection: You're leading the witness.

Arius spoke blasphemy concerning the nature of the Son but respected the Father and the Spirit as well as the Scriptures; Schaeffer is speaking blasphemy concerning the entire Godhead and His Scriptures. I did not intend to say anything more technical than that.

Now we're starting to get going here (with this p-ssing contest). Let me play! I'm going to argue that if Jesus is merely a created being, albeit a divinized one, that Christianity is useless and meaningless. A created being can't save us, thus Christianity would be a scam. All of it. Schaeffer, on the other hand, is just a sincere seeker, torn because he feels like Christianity is the best option, the truth even, yet there is obviously disgusting stuff in the Bible that needs to be faced up to. Arius was thus much worse. Ok, your turn.

I don't like to play Devil's advocate for someone speaking blasphemously, Asterikos, the Devil's team is not one I wish to play on :-)

Add to that there probably won't be an end to this game if we start it since it rare for someone to change their view through internet debates.

But I do object to the premise of your argument. Whether he is a sincere seeker is beyond my knowledge or yours, he may be totally fallen to his apparent passion of anger for all we know. But I am curious- what in his recent writings leads you to believe "he feels like Christianity is the best option, the truth even"?

He is not wrestling with how to face up to the stuff he disagrees with in Scripture, he is simply calling Scripture disgusting and stupid and those who believe it fools.

[Peter J]

I just started re-reading Peter Kreeft's "The Snakebite Letters" (for anyone who hasn't heard of it, it's similar to Lewis's "Screwtape Letters"). I though this would be appropriate to this thread, not only b/c of the general devilishness, but b/c of what it says about dissent:

   For that first wedge [first dissent] is like the first drink, or drug, or cigarette, or affair: It will not be his last. It's the first exception to the rule that all the Enemy's dogmas are infallible; and wherever humans make an exception to a rule, they make a rule of making exceptions. If he thinks, "I will believe everything the Enemy has revealed except that medieval superstition of original sin", he is saying, in effect, "I will believe whatever part of His teaching agree with my opinions, and whatever parts disagree with it, I won't."
   Thus he's really erecting a standard above Him, and judging Him by the standard: his mind over the Enemy's.

(p. 19)

[Clemente]

I just started re-reading Peter Kreeft's "The Snakebite Letters" (for anyone who hasn't heard of it, it's similar to Lewis's "Screwtape Letters"). I though this would be appropriate to this thread, not only b/c of the general devilishness, but b/c of what it says about dissent:

   For that first wedge [first dissent] is like the first drink, or drug, or cigarette, or affair: It will not be his last. It's the first exception to the rule that all the Enemy's dogmas are infallible; and wherever humans make an exception to a rule, they make a rule of making exceptions. If he thinks, "I will believe everything the Enemy has revealed except that medieval superstition of original sin", he is saying, in effect, "I will believe whatever part of His teaching agree with my opinions, and whatever parts disagree with it, I won't."
   Thus he's really erecting a standard above Him, and judging Him by the standard: his mind over the Enemy's.

(p. 19)

Thanks for that. Very germane. I like Peter Kreeft. Should I get this?

[Peter J]

I just started re-reading Peter Kreeft's "The Snakebite Letters" (for anyone who hasn't heard of it, it's similar to Lewis's "Screwtape Letters"). I though this would be appropriate to this thread, not only b/c of the general devilishness, but b/c of what it says about dissent:

   For that first wedge [first dissent] is like the first drink, or drug, or cigarette, or affair: It will not be his last. It's the first exception to the rule that all the Enemy's dogmas are infallible; and wherever humans make an exception to a rule, they make a rule of making exceptions. If he thinks, "I will believe everything the Enemy has revealed except that medieval superstition of original sin", he is saying, in effect, "I will believe whatever part of His teaching agree with my opinions, and whatever parts disagree with it, I won't."
   Thus he's really erecting a standard above Him, and judging Him by the standard: his mind over the Enemy's.

(p. 19)

Thanks for that. Very germane.

Yes, even if it doesn't directly help us to understand what Schaffer is arguing, it at least helps for understanding what Schaffer is arguing against.

I like Peter Kreeft. Should I get this?

Possibly, but I think I'd have to know you better to really say whether it would be worth your while.

[Opus118]

I just started re-reading Peter Kreeft's "The Snakebite Letters" (for anyone who hasn't heard of it, it's similar to Lewis's "Screwtape Letters"). I though this would be appropriate to this thread, not only b/c of the general devilishness, but b/c of what it says about dissent:

I do not know who this guy is Peter nor do I apparently really understand what he is trying to say.

   For that first wedge [first dissent] is like the first drink, or drug, or cigarette, or affair: It will not be his last. It's the first exception to the rule that all the Enemy's dogmas are infallible; and wherever humans make an exception to a rule, they make a rule of making exceptions.

This is akin to the domino theory that got us into the Vietnam War. I consider this kind of reasoning dangerous. I never considered how contemplation of bible verses or what some priest tells you about what Saint Augustine wrote is equivalent to taking a narcotics.

If he thinks, "I will believe everything the Enemy has revealed except that medieval superstition of original sin", he is saying, in effect, "I will believe whatever part of His teaching agree with my opinions, and whatever parts disagree with it, I won't."
   Thus he's really erecting a standard above Him, and judging Him by the standard: his mind over the Enemy's.

He must be referring to a particular person in order to make this statement. Who is it? Why is he using the term "If" if he believes this is common? Just curious.

[Shiny]

I must be one of the few people who a) doesn't get why Schaeffer is well known (his writing is terrible) and b) doesn't care if he's Orthodox or not.

On that matter, "conversion stories" as a genre are incredibly boring.

A) It's because of his father popularity.

[Peter J]

I just started re-reading Peter Kreeft's "The Snakebite Letters" (for anyone who hasn't heard of it, it's similar to Lewis's "Screwtape Letters"). I though this would be appropriate to this thread, not only b/c of the general devilishness, but b/c of what it says about dissent:

I do not know who this guy is Peter nor do I apparently really understand what he is trying to say.

   For that first wedge [first dissent] is like the first drink, or drug, or cigarette, or affair: It will not be his last. It's the first exception to the rule that all the Enemy's dogmas are infallible; and wherever humans make an exception to a rule, they make a rule of making exceptions.

This is akin to the domino theory that got us into the Vietnam War. I consider this kind of reasoning dangerous. I never considered how contemplation of bible verses or what some priest tells you about what Saint Augustine wrote is equivalent to taking a narcotics.

If he thinks, "I will believe everything the Enemy has revealed except that medieval superstition of original sin", he is saying, in effect, "I will believe whatever part of His teaching agree with my opinions, and whatever parts disagree with it, I won't."
   Thus he's really erecting a standard above Him, and judging Him by the standard: his mind over the Enemy's.

He must be referring to a particular person in order to make this statement. Who is it? Why is he using the term "If" if he believes this is common? Just curious.

Sorry, I should have elaborated. It's a letter written from one devil to another about how to tempt a "patient" (that's the "he"). ("The Enemy" and "He" refer to God, naturally, hence "It's the first exception to the rule that all the Enemy's dogmas are infallible" means "It's the first exception to the rule that all God's dogmas are infallible").

[Opus118]

I just started re-reading Peter Kreeft's "The Snakebite Letters" (for anyone who hasn't heard of it, it's similar to Lewis's "Screwtape Letters"). I though this would be appropriate to this thread, not only b/c of the general devilishness, but b/c of what it says about dissent:

I do not know who this guy is Peter nor do I apparently really understand what he is trying to say.

   For that first wedge [first dissent] is like the first drink, or drug, or cigarette, or affair: It will not be his last. It's the first exception to the rule that all the Enemy's dogmas are infallible; and wherever humans make an exception to a rule, they make a rule of making exceptions.

This is akin to the domino theory that got us into the Vietnam War. I consider this kind of reasoning dangerous. I never considered how contemplation of bible verses or what some priest tells you about what Saint Augustine wrote is equivalent to taking a narcotics.

If he thinks, "I will believe everything the Enemy has revealed except that medieval superstition of original sin", he is saying, in effect, "I will believe whatever part of His teaching agree with my opinions, and whatever parts disagree with it, I won't."
   Thus he's really erecting a standard above Him, and judging Him by the standard: his mind over the Enemy's.

He must be referring to a particular person in order to make this statement. Who is it? Why is he using the term "If" if he believes this is common? Just curious.

Sorry, I should have elaborated. It's a letter written from one devil to another about how to tempt a "patient" (that's the "he"). ("The Enemy" and "He" refer to God, naturally, hence "It's the first exception to the rule that all the Enemy's dogmas are infallible" means "It's the first exception to the rule that all God's dogmas are infallible").

Thanks Peter, it is clear now. I never read the Screwtape Letters as well.

[Peter J]

I just started re-reading Peter Kreeft's "The Snakebite Letters" (for anyone who hasn't heard of it, it's similar to Lewis's "Screwtape Letters"). I though this would be appropriate to this thread, not only b/c of the general devilishness, but b/c of what it says about dissent:

   For that first wedge [first dissent] is like the first drink, or drug, or cigarette, or affair: It will not be his last. It's the first exception to the rule that all the Enemy's dogmas are infallible; and wherever humans make an exception to a rule, they make a rule of making exceptions. If he thinks, "I will believe everything the Enemy has revealed except that medieval superstition of original sin", he is saying, in effect, "I will believe whatever part of His teaching agree with my opinions, and whatever parts disagree with it, I won't."
   Thus he's really erecting a standard above Him, and judging Him by the standard: his mind over the Enemy's.

(p. 19)

Thanks for that. Very germane.

Yes, even if it doesn't directly help us to understand what Schaffer is arguing, it at least helps for understanding what Schaffer is arguing against.

I like Peter Kreeft. Should I get this?

Possibly, but I think I'd have to know you better to really say whether it would be worth your while.

P.S. I'm only about 50 pages into the book, but based on what I've read so far, I suspect that a lot of the Orthodox posters would like it on some level. Kreeft seems to have the same underlying, shall we say, triumphalism that many of you have. (I say "underlying" b/c he's Catholic so naturally it plays out differently.)

[DavidH]

I just started re-reading Peter Kreeft's "The Snakebite Letters" (for anyone who hasn't heard of it, it's similar to Lewis's "Screwtape Letters"). I though this would be appropriate to this thread, not only b/c of the general devilishness, but b/c of what it says about dissent:

   For that first wedge [first dissent] is like the first drink, or drug, or cigarette, or affair: It will not be his last. It's the first exception to the rule that all the Enemy's dogmas are infallible; and wherever humans make an exception to a rule, they make a rule of making exceptions. If he thinks, "I will believe everything the Enemy has revealed except that medieval superstition of original sin", he is saying, in effect, "I will believe whatever part of His teaching agree with my opinions, and whatever parts disagree with it, I won't."
   Thus he's really erecting a standard above Him, and judging Him by the standard: his mind over the Enemy's.

(p. 19)

Thanks for that. Very germane.

Yes, even if it doesn't directly help us to understand what Schaffer is arguing, it at least helps for understanding what Schaffer is arguing against.

I like Peter Kreeft. Should I get this?

Possibly, but I think I'd have to know you better to really say whether it would be worth your while.

P.S. I'm only about 50 pages into the book, but based on what I've read so far, I suspect that a lot of the Orthodox posters would like it on some level. Kreeft seems to have the same underlying, shall we say, triumphalism that many of you have. (I say "underlying" b/c he's Catholic so naturally it plays out differently.)

It's been a while since I read both books but, as an Orthodox triumphalist, I agree :-)

Both books are good reads but I think I remember enjoying the Mere Christianity-ist CS Lewis one better. Nothing against Kreeft but it is hard for anyone to compete with CS Lewis for sheer enjoyability.

Didn't Lewis say something to the effect that The Screwtape Letters were the book he enjoyed writing least because he did not like having to think like a demon would in order to write it?

[Peter J]

as an Orthodox triumphalist,

I wonder if admitting it makes you more triumphalistic or less?

[DavidH]

as an Orthodox triumphalist,

I wonder if admitting it makes you more triumphalistic or less?

It causes me to give thanks a la 2 Corinthians 2:14 "Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place."  :-)

[Jetavan]

Schaeffer has a new blog at Patheos.com

[choy]

P.S.- Isn't writing books/blogs/movies/whatever about their conversions the bread and butter of the convert? I guess I should start a blog or something...could get a book deal out of it, if I play my cards right. 

Ka-ching!  Good idea! 

[Maria]

Why I Converted To Eastern Orthodoxy : Author Frank Shaeffer

Several priests in the OCA have forbidden their parishioners to gift that video to anyone.

My own parents were totally turned off to Orthodoxy after listening to Frankie's video.

[Cyrillic]

I think Schaeffer's mustache is disturbing. Did he shave it?

[Maria]

I just started re-reading Peter Kreeft's "The Snakebite Letters" (for anyone who hasn't heard of it, it's similar to Lewis's "Screwtape Letters"). I though this would be appropriate to this thread, not only b/c of the general devilishness, but b/c of what it says about dissent:

  For that first wedge [first dissent] is like the first drink, or drug, or cigarette, or affair: It will not be his last. It's the first exception to the rule that all the Enemy's dogmas are infallible; and wherever humans make an exception to a rule, they make a rule of making exceptions. If he thinks, "I will believe everything the Enemy has revealed except that medieval superstition of original sin", he is saying, in effect, "I will believe whatever part of His teaching agree with my opinions, and whatever parts disagree with it, I won't."
   Thus he's really erecting a standard above Him, and judging Him by the standard: his mind over the Enemy's.

(p. 19)

Thanks for that. Very germane.

Yes, even if it doesn't directly help us to understand what Schaffer is arguing, it at least helps for understanding what Schaffer is arguing against.

I like Peter Kreeft. Should I get this?

Possibly, but I think I'd have to know you better to really say whether it would be worth your while.

P.S. I'm only about 50 pages into the book, but based on what I've read so far, I suspect that a lot of the Orthodox posters would like it on some level. Kreeft seems to have the same underlying, shall we say, triumphalism that many of you have. (I say "underlying" b/c he's Catholic so naturally it plays out differently.)

It's been a while since I read both books but, as an Orthodox triumphalist, I agree :-)

Both books are good reads but I think I remember enjoying the Mere Christianity-ist CS Lewis one better. Nothing against Kreeft but it is hard for anyone to compete with CS Lewis for sheer enjoyability.

Didn't Lewis say something to the effect that The Screwtape Letters were the book he enjoyed writing least because he did not like having to think like a demon would in order to write it?

In my opinion, Screwtape Letters was the least enjoyable of CS Lewis' works because of all the demonic talk. However, the book was brilliant in exposing demonic argumentation and debate tactics still in use by those who oppose Christianity.

[livefreeordie]

If anyone wondered if Frank had finally gone off the deep end, this article should put any doubts to rest. He calls his article, "God is such a waste of time - Not to mention hell and the Burning US embassies" and he means it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/god-is-such-a-waste-of-ti_b_1883581.html

Read the whole thing, but here is an excerpt directly from Frank:

"Hell is irrelevant because of course there isn't one. The movie is important though because it exposes a real question: how can we survive the God-nuts who take this stuff seriously? Hellbound? is our chance to get to know the enemies of what's left of our crumbling "civilization."

Talking about hell in and of itself is a waste of time because if there is a "God" no one knows anything about him/her or it and they never will, let alone about what he/she or it will "do" about the "lost." But there are people, lots of them, who think hell is real because it fits their kill-your-neighbor-if-he-looks-at-you-funny vision of "life."

And Frank doesn't just think the idea of hell is a waste of time, here is what he thinks of you if you are a republican:

"The whole unwashed mob that is now the "Republican Party" -- a theocracy movement dedicated to imperial world domination, greed and gated communities, all in the name of a half-baked "Jesus" serving "his" masters on Wall Street who hate the rubes who vote for their bought and paid for "family values" candidates -- is struggling in the grip of their collective God-delusion. Or they are pretending to share that delusion even if they believe in none of it so they can stay in good with the mostly evangelical fact-deprived "Tea Party" crowd."

[augustin717]

I think he makes many good points. you can take it al apophatically, you know...

[Peter J]

If anyone wondered if Frank had finally gone off the deep end, this article should put any doubts to rest. He calls his article, "God is such a waste of time - Not to mention hell and the Burning US embassies" and he means it.

Is this one of those "I'm not sure if I want to be Christian, but if I am a Christian then I'm definitely such-and-such type of Christian because all the other forms of Christianity don't make sense"? (Genuine question. I don't claim to understand Shaeffer, and I'm not sure I want to.)

[DavidH]

Wow, what an article! It seems like Schaeffer is going to spend his whole life spewing rage at whichever groups he has left while blaming his parents for this, that, and the other thing for good measure.

I don't think anyone can take his comments as apophaticism. I have read apophatic theology and they are always reverent when they speak of God and Scripture. This is very sacrilegious and disrespectful. I think it's the other "a" word: apostasy.

Lord have mercy!

 

[livefreeordie]

I don't think anyone can take his comments as apophaticism. I have read apophatic theology and they are always reverent when they speak of God and Scripture. This is very sacrilegious and disrespectful. I think it's the other "a" word: apostasy.

Lord have mercy!

Exactly.

[Shiny]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/god-is-such-a-waste-of-ti_b_1883581.html

Wow, what happened to this guy.

[Jetavan]

I think Frank is on to something:

So perhaps it's no coincidence that atheism emerged in the context of the Western Christian expression of both Roman Catholic and Protestant "intellectual" and "rational" religions that carried on doctrinal disputes over their "facts" to such a degree that those theological issues became the root cause of endless wars, persecutions and killings. Beside the idea of correct doctrine leading to actual war Western Christianity paid another price in that it built a house of cards wherein if you remove one card the entire edifice collapses. Since religion was reduced to belief in the right ideas religion became more about the "recipes" in the "cookbook" than about cooking itself.
....
Most things we do have a human community reason for doing them rather than an ideological or theological "reason." I go to church because of my grandchildren. I enjoy taking them to the liturgy. But I'm fortunate because the liturgy I take them to the Greek Orthodox service that revolves around doing of liturgical practice rather than talking about belief systems. What you believe isn't the point. Showing up is. We light candles, take communion, make the sign of the cross, and kiss icons. The comfort I derive from these inane rituals is much the same as the comfort I get from gardening.
....
A "fact based" religious life -- in other words the idea that theology is a road to knowing the "right way" to love God -- is like a fact-based marriage where each person has to be "right" about everything. It's devoid of hope on those days when you don't agree. And spirituality like a marriage only works when the prime directive of love overrides who is right or wrong.

[DavidH]

"What one believes isn't the point" in the Church of the Seven Councils? I think what one believes is very important in a religion whose name means "right teaching/ worship".

Both the teaching and the "inane rituals" as he calls them are important.

Most important of all is to bring to these a reverent and loving heart that is free of the passionate rage that seems to permeate everything Frank writes these days.

 

[augustin717]

I could treat you to some dispassionate rage from some holy elders at any time. Come on, the man is angry. So what? So are many of the monks etc.

[Gorazd]

Frank Schaeffer isn't a theologian. He writes what he feels. But I guess he is on something. We cannot know God with our brains*, we can only experience the mystery.

*That's Orthodox doctrine, as opposed to Western scholasticism.


I am convinced that no one in this forum has the right to condemn a communing member of the Orthodox Church, calling him apostate or whatever. If there is any issue, then it is up to his priest and bishop.

[DavidH]

I could treat you to some dispassionate rage from some holy elders at any time. Come on, the man is angry. So what? So are many of the monks etc.

They would no doubt be angry, as we should be, at someone who refers to the Scriptures as Bronze-Age myths written by homophobic misogynists and to the rejection of the teachings of the Church as an exercise in apophatic theology, or to calling God "if there is one" a "he, she, or it".

Sorry, I am not buying the comparison between Schaeffer and the holy elders, brother.

[Gorazd]

God surely is beyond male, female or neuter, because those are created by God. Christ is male according to his human nature, not according to his divinity.

[DavidH]

God surely is beyond male, female or neuter, because those are created by God. Christ is male according to his human nature, not according to his divinity.

Yes, that is a part of basic Orthodox theology, it is also part of our practice to refer to God (who is Spirit) as Scripture and the Fathers do: with male pronouns. Not because He is male but because this is the most appropriate form of reference.

[Justin Kissel]

If anyone wondered if Frank had finally gone off the deep end, this article should put any doubts to rest. He calls his article, "God is such a waste of time - Not to mention hell and the Burning US embassies" and he means it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/god-is-such-a-waste-of-ti_b_1883581.html

Well, that's an "interesting" article, or a rant "I" guess is more what "it" is.

[Peter J]

Wow, what an article! It seems like Schaeffer is going to spend his whole life spewing rage at whichever groups he has left while blaming his parents for this, that, and the other thing for good measure.

And at some he never belonged to in the first place, e.g. Catholicism. (At least, so I've heard from other Catholics. I never thoroughly investigated the matter myself.)

[Gorazd]

Yes, that is a part of basic Orthodox theology, it is also part of our practice to refer to God (who is Spirit) as Scripture and the Fathers do: with male pronouns. Not because He is male but because this is the most appropriate form of reference.

It is just that "o theos" (God) is gramatically male in Greek. To pnevma (the Spirit) is neuter in Greek and used by the Fathers that way.

But the Fathers, such as St. Dionysios Areopagita and St. Gregory of Nyssa, clearly point out that this language does not mean God is truly male, they even point out that no language is appropriate at all to refer to God.

[DavidH]

Yes, that is a part of basic Orthodox theology, it is also part of our practice to refer to God (who is Spirit) as Scripture and the Fathers do: with male pronouns. Not because He is male but because this is the most appropriate form of reference.

It is just that "o theos" (God) is gramatically male in Greek. To pnevma (the Spirit) is neuter in Greek and used by the Fathers that way.

But the Fathers, such as St. Dionysios Areopagita and St. Gregory of Nyssa, clearly point out that this language does not mean God is truly male, they even point out that no language is appropriate at all to refer to God.

I agree with your post and don't see how it contradicts mine.

How are we in disagreement then?

Would it be just as Orthodox in Greek or English to say the "Our Parent" or the "Our Mother" as it is to say the "Our Father"?

When Schaeffer says "he, she, it" and questions whether God even exists he is deliberately undermining the traditional Christian terminology of the Fathers.

[augustin717]

Yes, that is a part of basic Orthodox theology, it is also part of our practice to refer to God (who is Spirit) as Scripture and the Fathers do: with male pronouns. Not because He is male but because this is the most appropriate form of reference.

It is just that "o theos" (God) is gramatically male in Greek. To pnevma (the Spirit) is neuter in Greek and used by the Fathers that way.

But the Fathers, such as St. Dionysios Areopagita and St. Gregory of Nyssa, clearly point out that this language does not mean God is truly male, they even point out that no language is appropriate at all to refer to God.

I agree with your post and don't see how it contradicts mine.

How are we in disagreement then?

Would it be just as Orthodox in Greek or English to say the "Our Parent" or the "Our Mother" as it is to say the "Our Father"?

When Schaeffer says "he, she, it" and questions whether God even exists he is deliberately undermining the traditional Christian terminology of the Fathers.

Not necessarily. I think it's his more recent politics (just a tame, safe form of liberalism, after all) that make those that formerly admired his conversion to orthodoxy, read him know with the hermeneutics of suspicion. It's funny to watch.

[DavidH]

Yes, that is a part of basic Orthodox theology, it is also part of our practice to refer to God (who is Spirit) as Scripture and the Fathers do: with male pronouns. Not because He is male but because this is the most appropriate form of reference.

It is just that "o theos" (God) is gramatically male in Greek. To pnevma (the Spirit) is neuter in Greek and used by the Fathers that way.

But the Fathers, such as St. Dionysios Areopagita and St. Gregory of Nyssa, clearly point out that this language does not mean God is truly male, they even point out that no language is appropriate at all to refer to God.

I agree with your post and don't see how it contradicts mine.

How are we in disagreement then?

Would it be just as Orthodox in Greek or English to say the "Our Parent" or the "Our Mother" as it is to say the "Our Father"?

When Schaeffer says "he, she, it" and questions whether God even exists he is deliberately undermining the traditional Christian terminology of the Fathers.

Not necessarily. I think it's his more recent politics (just a tame, safe form of liberalism, after all) that make those that formerly admired his conversion to orthodoxy, read him know with the hermeneutics of suspicion. It's funny to watch.

That is funny.

I was just thinking the opposite: that those who now admire his conversion to the political Left will go through any mental contortion to justify whatever he says because they like to see those they consider religious fundamentalists or the political right get bashed by him.

[livefreeordie]

He can't stop himself.  Here's another gem from today.

"Since when do theologians know more about Hell than anyone else? I mean what's a PhD in make-believe worth? Anybody's guess is as good as theirs."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/prohell-evangelical-basti_b_1899325.html

[DavidH]

He can't stop himself.  Here's another gem from today.

"Since when do theologians know more about Hell than anyone else? I mean what's a PhD in make-believe worth? Anybody's guess is as good as theirs."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/prohell-evangelical-basti_b_1899325.html

You don't understand, this is just another example of apoplectic, I  mean, apophatic theology....

[livefreeordie]

 

[Jetavan]

Hell: it's not just for church anymore. It's in TV, video games, even food branding. Filmmaker Kevin Miller explores our cultural obsession in his movie, "Hellbound?" Also joining the conversation are Brian McLaren, Chris Stedman and Frank Schaeffer.

[DavidH]

To be fair to Schaeffer, after rereading the article, which is indeed full of his unique apoplectic theology on most of his other points, it seems that he is a Universalist and subscribes to the apokatastasis:

QUOTE: "Completely untrue. When the Universalists talk about the afterlife, they all say there's plenty of room for post-mortem punishment! It's not all daffodils and bunny rabbits and rainbows. It's a hard justice where EVERYONE has to come to terms with the life they've lived -- and make appropriate reparations. If I were Penn and Teller I would stop the review here and say, "BS!"

 While Origen's version of this teaching has been condemned (at least the idea of the pre-existence of the soul and the inevitability of universal salvation as dogma) it has remained the view of some Fathers and important teachers of the Church with no ill affect to their standing: St. Isaac, St. Gregory the Theologian, the early Blessed Jerome, Clement of Alexandria, Didymus the Blind, etc. Nowadays we also have Metropolitans Kallistos and Alfeyev for example.

 While I believe Schaeffer is free to accept this minority opinion as a theologoumenon, I don't understand how he can be so unhinged at the seeming near universal view of the Church and the Fathers that there is a hell to which many will go eternally.



Quoted profanity replaced with something more acceptable for the Public Forum  -PtA

[Jetavan]

Both the teaching and the "inane rituals" as he calls them are important.

Shaeffer has said that the Orthodox Church as a slightly "insane" quality to it, which, for him, is perfect ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLtApJdxcbQ&feature=relmfu ).

[DavidH]

Both the teaching and the "inane rituals" as he calls them are important.

Shaeffer has said that the Orthodox Church as a slightly "insane" quality to it, which, for him, is perfect ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLtApJdxcbQ&feature=relmfu ).

Yes, I have seen this talk before and think its pretty good, thanks for reminding me about it.

I much prefer this 1996 version of Schaeffer to the one in the 2012 stuff he is putting out now.

Back then his statements were Orthodox even when it was also too harsh, much of what he says now can only be described as heterodox.

[Jetavan]

Frankie does it again:

Who needs this God business?

And yet, here I am telling my four-year-old granddaughter Lucy that God made the rock she just asked about.
....
I say “and yet” because there’s this internal conversation. “You don’t know anything,” I say to myself, “why lie to her?” The other me answers, “But why pass on your doubts? She deserves a chance at certainty no matter how fleeting, and anyway you still beg God for help even on days when you don’t believe. For instance you’re on your face often enough praying for protection for Lucy.”

And that begging, called prayer, keeps beckoning me back. Old habits die hard. Nothing kills faith faster than being or having been a so-called Christian leader. Mix in the bitter politics of the religious right, let a few years pass, change careers and get out of the God business, and pretty soon you ask – rather I asked myself – who needs this God nonsense?

It turns out that I do.
....
Is there a God? If there is does he hate you? Did Jesus “die for our sins”? What sort of a “god” would continue the terrible cycle of sin, retribution and sacrifice up to such a crazy point as the murder of his own child to satisfy some sort of blood lust masquerading as justice?
....
Maybe his death wasn’t about satisfying an angry God but about breaking the cycle of revenge forever and answering the murder of innocence and an innocent victim with forgiveness for all. If that Jesus, that God, is the creator then he’s worth telling Lucy about — even on days I don’t believe, which on many days I don’t.

[Gorazd]

Frankie does it again:

Who needs this God business?
Maybe his death wasn’t about satisfying an angry God but about breaking the cycle of revenge forever and answering the murder of innocence and an innocent victim with forgiveness for all. If that Jesus, that God, is the creator then he’s worth telling Lucy about — even on days I don’t believe, which on many days I don’t.

Now that is a wonderful statement.

[Opus118]

Frankie does it again:

Using all of the internet resources available to you why are you calling Frank Schaeffer, Frankie? This term for some reason has a negative connotation from what I can see and I would like to see of full explanation as to why you and others use this designation.

[LBK]

Frankie does it again:

Using all of the internet resources available to you why are you calling Frank Schaeffer, Frankie? This term for some reason has a negative connotation from what I can see and I would like to see of full explanation as to why you and others use this designation.

IIRC, it's to distinguish the younger Francis Schaeffer from the elder Francis Shaeffer.

[Jetavan]

Frankie does it again:

Using all of the internet resources available to you why are you calling Frank Schaeffer, Frankie? This term for some reason has a negative connotation from what I can see and I would like to see of full explanation as to why you and others use this designation.

Schaeffer made an audiocassette entitled The Abortion Holocaust and How to Stop It, using the name "Frankie Schaeffer," so the name is fair game. Besides, I'm a fan of Frankie.

[Opus118]

Frankie does it again:

Using all of the internet resources available to you why are you calling Frank Schaeffer, Frankie? This term for some reason has a negative connotation from what I can see and I would like to see of full explanation as to why you and others use this designation.

Schaeffer made an audiocassette entitled The Abortion Holocaust and How to Stop It, using the name "Frankie Schaeffer," so the name is fair game. Besides, I'm a fan of Frankie.

Not a satisfying answer Jetavan. LBK may be right that it was originally used to distinguish Francis from Frank, but that seem irrelevant at this point. You may like Frankie, but I hate the ie after my name so I am somewhat oversensitive on this matter.

I would say that every post besides your unique use of the term Frankie for Frank Schaeffer is meant to be a pejorative label. One need only type Frankie in the search engine of this forum to see that.

He is a mystery to me but the term Frankie really bothers me.

[Peter J]

I don't know about anyone else here, but speaking for myself I'm thinking it's simply best not to pay too much attention to F. Schaeffer Jr. (along with a few other Orthodox I could name).

[FormerReformer]

I don't know about anyone else here, but speaking for myself I'm thinking it's simply best not to pay too much attention to F. Schaeffer Jr. (along with a few other Orthodox I could name).

I'll thank you, sir, not to talk about me in such a way. And how did you learn my name?

[Shanghaiski]

they even point out that no language is appropriate at all to refer to God.

Which is why they never really wrote anything themselves, but instead lived silently in caves ascending to nirvana.

[Gorazd]

they even point out that no language is appropriate at all to refer to God.

Which is why they never really wrote anything themselves, but instead lived silently in caves ascending to nirvana.

Many great saints actually did not write anything at all, but concentrated on pure prayer, indeed in caves, in the desert etc.

[Peter J]

I don't know about anyone else here, but speaking for myself I'm thinking it's simply best not to pay too much attention to F. Schaeffer Jr. (along with a few other Orthodox I could name).

I'll thank you, sir, not to talk about me in such a way. And how did you learn my name?

Well, along with a few other Orthodox I could name or screen-name as the case may be, I should say. But I'm not sure you would make the list.

[Peter J]

I don't know about anyone else here, but speaking for myself I'm thinking it's simply best not to pay too much attention to F. Schaeffer Jr. (along with a few other Orthodox I could name).

I'll thank you, sir, not to talk about me in such a way. And how did you learn my name?

Well, along with a few other Orthodox I could name or screen-name as the case may be, I should say. But I'm not sure you would make the list.

P.S. Tom Hanks would be an example (one I can actually "name").

[DavidH]

Schaeffer's "Apophatic Theology" in action.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIcLtQA75nc

[Jetavan]

Given the recent meterological events, this might be relevant: Francis Schaeffer, Pollution and the Death of Man, 1970:

"At the creation of the world, God gave mankind the responsibility to exercise dominion over the earth. Man was to use the earth and its abundance of resources to satisfy his physical needs, but he was also to care for the earth and its creatures as a wise and godly steward. Reading about endangered species or another oil spill will make it abundantly clear that the human race has failed miserably in its God-given mandate. How did we get to this point? Where should we go from here?

This classic by Francis Schaeffer, now repackaged, looks at contemporary ecological crises through the lens of theology and Scripture."

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Protestant Discussion (Moderator: PeterTheAleut) > Topic: Why I Converted To Eastern Orthodoxy : Author Frank Shaeffer