The Betrayal of Franky Schaeffer
I don’t know if I’ve ever mentioned it on this site, but I’m a big fan of Francis Schaeffer, the evangelical theologian, writer, activist, etc. Although his work is far from perfect, without it I doubt whether I or many other Christians would ever have moved into the broader world of intellect beyond the slim volumes available in the local Zondervan store. Certainly, I doubt whether I would have begun work for the Ph.D. without his influence.
I recently provided research assistance to Barry Hankins in his book about Schaeffer’s life and work. Though Hankins is sometimes critical, I think he also saw a great deal to admire in Francis Schaeffer. His book The God Who Is There is particularly compelling. My introduction to his work came through the multi-part film series How Should We Then Live.
Schaeffer was an unusual fellow. Though born and raised in America, he rose to fame as the host of a Christian retreat in Switzerland that ministered to young wanderers from the universities of Europe. They crashed at his place and he engaged them continually with an examination of their worldview. It worked amazingly well. He began to tour the United States, blowing minds at Christian colleges and churches, and challenging students at secular institutions. My in-laws were at Wheaton when Schaeffer came to give lectures. This strange man with knickers, long hair, and a chin beard talked about art, music, history, culture, politics, and science. He knew what was happening at the cutting edge of society and could comment intelligently about it. He had seen the films and listened to the music, even the aharmonious works of John Cage.
I give you this background to say that I cannot understand the attitude of his son and longtime partner in his work, Frank Schaeffer (formerly known as Franky Schaeffer). I decided to look in on his website and found the following:
Frank was born in Switzerland to the famous American evangelical theologian/evangelist Dr. Francis Schaeffer. Frank was sent to British boarding schools—from which he ran away at fifteen. He became an artist protégé. His first one-man show was in New York at the Frisch Gallery when he was seventeen. It was followed by successful shows in London and Geneva. Mrs. David Rockefeller bought the first painting sold at Frank’s New York show.
Frank is a survivor of both polio and an evangelical/fundamentalist childhood, an acclaimed writer who overcame severe dyslexia, a home-schooled and self-taught documentary movie director, a feature film director and producer of four (“pretty terrible”) low budget Hollywood features, and a best selling author of both fiction and nonfiction.
As you might imagine, I find the portion I italicized rather galling, as though an evangelical/fundamentalist childhood were a scourge comparable to POLIO. I didn’t have that kind of upbringing. In honesty I felt blessed to run into those kind of folks at Florida State University. I guarantee you I didn’t feel like I caught a crippling disease.
Last I heard, Frank had converted to Eastern Orthodoxy. I have to hope that his position on evangelicals is not foundational to their church.
November 29th, 2006 at 9:24 pm
I would take that statement in a “Philip Yancey” kind of way. Yancey says some very strong and negative things about his fundamentalist upbringing yet he is a very popular evangelical author. The facts unfortunately are that many have been damaged in conservative and fundamentalist churches. I am more concerned about Frank being sent off to boarding school away from a home known for its hospitality. That seems rather odd.
November 29th, 2006 at 9:33 pm
Thanks for a post that stimulated a lot of thoughts…
1. Francis Schaeffer was a compelling figure, but if I may say so, he seems to me to be a good deal paler and less robust in comparison to what he would have been . . . had he been Catholic. Maybe I’m being unfair; and I don’t mean to take anything away from him, but I do think his Protestantism limited him.
2. About Frank(y) Schaeffer. Even back when he was an Evangelical, he always seemed a bit “off” to me. It had to be hard to grow up in the shadow of his father. Who knows, maybe his father was a jerk? I do think his father presented himself in a rather odd way; that may mean nothing — or it may mean he was . . . odd.
There’s certainly a phenomenon of people who, upon converting from something, turn about and savage that from which they were converted. It happens to many of us, although we often outgrow it. Some never do.
All that said, I think there is something absolutely appalling about someone publicly dressing-down or demeaning ones own parents and upbringing. OK, if you were molested or something, then I understand completely — but generally speaking, to speak ill of ones parents is terribly ungrateful, particularly when (a) your parents, if alive, will not return fire, so it’s like fighting someone who’s hands are tied, and (b) when your parents are dead, they really can’t respond.
I seem to recall something in the Old Law of the Bible about a child who reviled his parent being stoned, or having his tongue torn out, or something.
November 29th, 2006 at 9:58 pm
First, some things are just said tongue n cheek. Saying “I survived growing up in Suburbia” doesn’t mean suburbia is a living hell. It’s just meant to be cute. Second, if you live in the art world, taking the occasional passing shot at Evangelicals can’t possibly be bad for your street cred. Third, he didn’t say anything direct about his parents. Fourth, if he had really wanted to tear his parents apart, there are a million things he could have said (whether or not they were true) but didn’t.
Finally, relax. It’s just a turn of phrase. Ten years from now teens will be saying “I survived growing up on My Space.”
November 29th, 2006 at 10:09 pm
By throwing off the “legalism” of his past, Franky Schaeffer can, with impunity, not honor his father and his mother. This way he can flip off two grave stones with one bird.
Ironically, his attitude toward his past is very “fundamentalist”: separate from those who are not “pure” like me! I guess you can take the boy out of fundamentalism, but you can’t the fundamentalism out of the boy.
November 29th, 2006 at 10:31 pm
Franky Schaeffer is never tongue in cheek about anything. You should read his books back before he left the evangelical fold. Pretty deadly serious guy. I think he applies the same intensity to his current disapproval of his origins. The equivocation of polio and his upbringing seems pretty intentional and not lighthearted at all.
Fr. Fox, I think you hit the target when you talked about ingratitude to one’s parents. There are plenty of minor gripes one accumulates, but short of real abuse, talking down the folks is just really poor form. The other thing is that until recently, I don’t think Franky’s stuff was very successful, yet he has lived in all these nice locales and had a son in prep school. Probably an inheritance from Dad’s phenomenally well-selling books and maybe even continued royalties from them.
November 30th, 2006 at 7:06 am
Frank Schaeffer’s life has been one of a series of reinventions, both religious and political. There could be a rousing debate staged between these various incarnations of the same man. He is a person of considerable talents, but I always find it difficult to trust a man who transforms himself so frequently.
November 30th, 2006 at 9:44 am
I know a woman who knew the Schaeffers. Her analysis was that “Franky” was badly spoiled as a child, partly because he was the only son and partly because they nearly lost him to polio.
As an adult he wrote a novel called PORTOFINO, in which he told the story of a boy growing up as the son of painfully clueless and insensitive American missionaries in Europe. It was obviously a “roman a clef,” but Frank denies to this day that he was depicting his own family, and professes to be amazed anyone could draw that conclusion.
The sense of betrayal felt by his mother (who passed away recently) and his sisters was very large.
November 30th, 2006 at 10:22 am
Frank contributes to HuffingtonPost
November 30th, 2006 at 10:57 am
I would like to, as they say in the Senate, “revise and extend my remarks.” Judging from the HuffPo material, his comment was clearly not an off-hand or whimsical line. Clearly, the man has Issues. Still, he admits it would have been the same in any environment where ideology was stressed so heavily.
November 30th, 2006 at 12:28 pm
As an Orthodox Christian, Franky is a bit of a fascination to me. I grew up on the other end of the spectrum (Unitarian Universalist), and the bitterness of the “recovering fundamentalist” while all too familiar to me (UU is a “recovery” gathering of sorts for these people), it is yet another species of sin and needs to be hung on the cross with all the rest.
I too know (or knew) a women who spent some time at the Schaeffers retreat and she remembers a bratty teenager who was even more moody and bratty than average.
Still, he is right to criticize some of the consequences of the “reformed ideology” of his past. Publicly confessing other’s sins however (parents or otherwise) is wrought with danger. As to whether his “position on Evangelicals is foundational to {Eastern Orthodoxy}” while his personal animosity is not, his theological critique is (sometimes) on…
November 30th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
Christopher, theological engagement and debate is one thing, but I imagine most Orthodox believers would view evangelicalism far more positively than Franky seems to.
November 30th, 2006 at 5:07 pm
I am curious to see exactly how Father Fox thinks Francis Schaeffer would have been less pale and more robust if he was a Catholic instead of a Calvinist Presbyterian. When I think of pale and less than robust faiths, Calvinism is not usually one that comes to mind.
November 30th, 2006 at 6:45 pm
Leroy:
It has been awhile since I read Schaeffer, so perhaps my memory miscarries — but it seems to me his reflections on art focused mainly on how it saw man, and he avoided a great deal of art from Western civilization — that which was heavy with Catholic stuff. Had he embraced it all, that would have greatly enriched his reflections.
November 30th, 2006 at 7:56 pm
I think one of Schaeffer’s flaws is that he gives the Reformation too much credit. It deserves a lot, but he shorts much of the Catholic tradition and lays all the glory with the early church and the Reformers.
December 1st, 2006 at 12:26 pm
“I imagine most Orthodox believers would view evangelicalism far more positively than Franky seems to.”
Oh yes, I would agree. Franky’s parents do seem to have had real personal “issues” that Franky attributes to their theology, although I would attribute it to simple personal shortcomings.
That said, there is much to be criticized in the evangelical “culture” or “habit”. Franky rightly criticizes how many evangelicals “pray at” people, for example. see:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/saving-jews-from-ballet-_b_35052.html
I have seen this in action on my wife’s side of the family and it is just a little duplicitous IMO. It is also rather common, though any church/family will display it to greater or lesser degree.
Still, as a whole, Orthodox people in the USA tend to recognize Evangelicals, Southern Baptists, and other traditional protestants as natural allies in many things. The Greeks (as individuals) do have more of a tendency to look to liberal protestants, as they have a stronger immigrant flavor that looks for societal respect…