The generalization, based on the Isaac/Jacob relationship, that the Bible "knows nothing of this perspective (blaming parents for the children's behavior)" flies in the face of the facts, viz., that the Bible clearly recognizes the parent's influence for good or ill on the children. Its call to "not provoke your children" implicitly understands that some parental behavior can have negative effects on the children, and the Church would be wise to recognize and deal with such effects. On the positive side, the Bible's call for parents to "train up a child in the way he should go" is another instance of the Biblical understanding that parents can have a positive influence on the children. Was the editorial's failure to cite the Bible's clear interest in parental influence--blame as well as plaudits--on children simply an oversight, or is there another agenda?

The comments to this article are so much more insightful than the article itself, which in my humble opinion is horse dooky. That CT thinks that the 5th commandment given to Israel has any application whatsoever to Frank Shafer strikes me as quite odd. That anyone thinks that Frank doesn't have the full right to write this book about his father for whatever reason (provided that he is giving what he believes to be an accurate account) is absurd. It was Francis who put himself out there on the line in the public eye all dressed up in those absolutely ridiculous outfits, not Frank. If Francis had not so sought the public eye, there would have been no public with an interest in this book. Francis created the audience for which Frank has written, and at least enough of that audience is interested in what Frank has to say to pony up and buy the book. Now what does that tell you, that at least a slice of Francis cult following sensed that he had lost it in the last years of his life.

My problem has more to do with shoving the 5th commandment down our thoats with no discussion of how parents are suppossed to treat children. In my situation, my worst enemies are my parents. One has abandoned me and my siblings to create another family. The other has abused us and lied about us while pretending to be the perfect mother, teacher and christian. She has stolen our child support for herself, used the removal of health insurance as a way to control us, and has run my sister off, the only person who could help me with my suffering concerning my her actions. If I ever get the chance to tell the world (whether its our small group of family and friends) or the actual world, about who she really is I will. She deserves no less than to be fully exposed for her lieing, cheating, abuse and hypocrisy. Maybe than she will be forced to answer for her crimes. This is no different than the article. Parents should be afraid of what children will say. What is done in the dark....

Here we have another example of "Shoot the messenger". The hypocracy of high profile religious figures is a problem that needs to be uncovered.

I've read Frank Schaeffer's book, and all I can say to Os Guiness is that of the two of them, only Frank lived with his widely-respected father, and so is better qualified to comment on him, warts and all. The younger Schaeffer's book is helpful in understanding the elder's entry into the "culture wars;" the rest is mediocre and could have been dispatched if perhaps the elder had written a memoir himself. Where are all the good evangelical memoirs? In fact, where's any semblance of personal transparency in evangelical leaders? As for the editorial, does Christianity Today really believe it's better to let the public believe nice lies about authority figures than to set the record straight? Doesn't someone who claims to follow the Jesus who said anyone who followed Him must hate their father and mother owe the truth more fidelity than that?