The Huffington Post featured a particularly ugly screed by Frank Schaeffer. He claims to be providing a service to the Republic by exposing “the loony Reconstructionist/Theonomist” agenda of people like Robert George and Richard John Neuhaus.
Schaeffer is a great exaggerator, what with all the hyperventilating about theocracy and “extremism.” And he backs these claim up by not so subtly suggesting that he was a right wing insider himself, and so he’s to be trusted to know what’s what.
For example, he writes, “The late Roman Catholic convert priest Richard John Neuhaus and I often talked when Neuhaus was starting his far right First Things journal.” Then he goes on to say, “I contributed several articles to some of the early issues of First Things.”
Hum. Often talked, is it? And several articles?
But it turns out that Schaeffer did not contribute several articles. He has only one article in the First Things archive. (“Art and the Spirit,” May 1991.)
Did he then “often talk” with Richard John Neuhaus?
Can we trust Frankie Schaeffer to tell the truth about anything?
March 1st, 2012 | 12:01 am
If I’m not mistaken, didn’t Franky Schaeffer help Al Gore discover the internet?
March 1st, 2012 | 4:21 am
While I’m not taking sides here, what is up with referring to him as “Frankie”? Is that a nickname the man in question actually uses or is this intended as a way to knock him down in status by applying an unfashionably childish nickname to him?
I’ve noticed this is rather common in internet discussions — people use overly-familiar nicknames to refer to people in a dismissive manner. Unless he uses it himself, it’s the sort of subtle ad hominem (not unlike referring to a grown man as “boy”) that people who want to be taken seriously would be well-advised to steer clear of.
March 1st, 2012 | 8:34 am
Schaeffer published several books under the name Franky Schaeffer. I’ll bet that’s the name on his 1991 article, in fact.
March 1st, 2012 | 10:02 am
@J Manley, Mark: That is indeed the name he uses in his 1991 article.
March 1st, 2012 | 10:24 am
Never trust a man who calls himself Frankie.
March 1st, 2012 | 10:39 am
He may have been telling the truth. I myself have contributed many articles to many different journals, First Things included. The question is, How many got accepted?
March 1st, 2012 | 11:54 am
Frankie is rebelling against Francis’ anger and moodiness. He resents his father. He needs to forgive him.
March 1st, 2012 | 12:57 pm
I’ve read all of schaeffer’s non-fiction. His book about his son’s enlistment in the Marines is quite good. One feels like a peepng tom in reading the books about his family life. His book on orthodoxy is the last book one would want to give to an interested party. Frederica Mathewes-Green is a much better introduction. Interestingly Schaeffer jr seems to have as much a problem with anger as his father allegedly did. I wish him well, but geez fellow, get over it.
March 1st, 2012 | 4:35 pm
“Interestingly Schaeffer jr seems to have as much a problem with anger as his father allegedly did.”
Yup that’s what happens when you don’t give up your resentments and exercise proper forgiveness.
March 2nd, 2012 | 12:15 am
So, what is the answer to the questions?
March 9th, 2012 | 7:54 am
I think the books reveal a complex person – one with regrets but also hope. I saw no sign of him as an unforgiving spirit, but rather one of acceptance. He accepted who his father was, both good and bad and wanted to give those who put Francis Schaeffer up on a pedastol a better understanding of who the man was, warts and all. If anything, Schaeffer’s rejection of fundamentalist evangelical Christianity stems less from his parents and more from the hypocrisy and contradictions that he came to realize over the years. He held his parents up as flawed, yet loving souls who often showed a love for people and sinners that he perceived inconsistent with the fundamentalist dogmas of their faith.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact