All Comments for: The Problem with Juicy Memoirs | Christianity Today

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2008 > May

Christianity Today, May, 2008 |

The Problem with Juicy Memoirs

Recent tell-all biographies of parents are only symptoms of deeper concern.

A Christianity Today editorial | posted 4/24/2008 08:46AM

Recently, the adult children of two prophetic Christian leaders revealed more about their deceased parents' lives than many of us wished to know. One of the prophetic voices was the late Paul Moore, the ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 comments.

Page: 1

Show All

William

Posted: April 29, 2008 11:14 AM

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?

Billy

Posted: April 28, 2008 5:41 PM

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.

Dea	Posted: April 28, 2008 3:40 PM

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....

Jim	Posted: April 28, 2008 1:21 PM


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

MDSF	Posted: April 28, 2008 1:16 PM

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?

Mike	Posted: April 28, 2008 12:19 PM


Did CT intend to include quotation marks around their use of the phrase “shilling for the Religious Right”? I assume they did. I’m sure there are plenty of hacks who think Frank Shaeffer's father did just that, but I think CT is above that sort of rhetoric, even if they privately believe so. I certainly hope CT is above that.

Peter F. Benson, editor UNITYINCHRIST.COM

Posted: April 26, 2008 1:39 PM

Wow! What an article! Tells it like it is in God's eyes. We're so focussed on what we think is right, and not on what God thinks is right or proper. The family is everything to God, and children produced by a loving father and mother are paramout to God (even when the father and mother are not married--God loves all children and family units!). But those children are to respect the family unit that produced them, as imperfect as those two may be. That is God's way. That is one reason God hates divorce among his people (read Malachi). All the Old Testament laws about family and marriage are for the protecting of that unit, which pictures the Triune God, and ultimately God's plan for mankind. Read Leviticus 18 and 20, which is chock full of laws protecting the family. These laws are not polite suggestions, but laws meant to protect God's Holy nation, the nation of Israel, when they were given. They also apply to mankind as a whole, and will protect those that keep them.

Jonathan Hunnicutt

Posted: April 25, 2008 3:10 PM

I am continually frustrated that the church has over-emphasized: "Honor thy father and thy mother" at the expense of "Thou shalt not bear false witness." So we hide our parents faults from ourselves, and our communities instead of dealing with them. We must learn to tell the truth about our parents, ultimately, I think that would be the ultimate honoring of them. Only by understanding what they did wrong can we have a backdrop to understand what they did right. In other words, it is the church's overemphasis on the 5th commandment that has lead to an ignoring of the 9th commandment. CT's editorial seems to be more of the same. We may have created Frank Schaeffer by forcing him to cover for his father so long.

Leroy

Posted: April 25, 2008 2:58 PM

My hat goes off to Robin Pearson, Marianne Miller and Chuck who nailed this article and whose comments are spot on. I haven't read Frank's book, don't care why he wrote it, but have no doubt that he would not have done so had Francis been more actively involved in the lives of his children, rather than playing the Christian celebrity and the quasi-philosopher poster boy of the Religious Right. Francis had some good things to say regarding the seemingly incompatibility of certain philosophical positions with how those who held them lived their lives, but when he wandered into this "Christian Manifesto" stage, he fudged the facts, manipulated the truth, etc. So, who knows what sort of father he was, etc. The idea that writing a book about one's father that is less than flattering is some how breaking the 5th commandment, is simply laughable. Makes you wonder exactly what CT had in mind or what it was worried about. Hmmmm ?

Ramblin' Dan

Posted: April 25, 2008 12:33 PM


Children don't really know their parents. They know an idealized version of their parents tainted by the child's own hopes, expectations and longings.

Steve

Posted: April 25, 2008 9:36 AM

What is really tragic is that some people have used the comments section not to comment on the validity of the author's discussion of the Fifth Commandment, but to attack people dead and long gone. Frankie Schaeffer, who has used the last few years to undermine so much of his parents' work, might be telling the truth, or he might be embellishing to satisfy his newfound ideology. But in the end, does he honor his parents by writing a scathing memoir--which has already been criticized for alleged untruths--or does he hurt their legacy of reaching people for Christ?

Ephrem Hagos

Posted: April 25, 2008 7:03 AM


Honor is the right of all parents even if some do not deserve our love! God knows that! Therefore, cursing them will only put our own lives at risk of ending up like a lamp that goes out in the dark (Prov. 20:20). Better not find out firsthand. Why would God want to have as His children those who don't honor their parents?

Robin Pearson

Posted: April 25, 2008 2:11 AM

What's individualistic is to deceive the general public by covering up hypocrisy for no other reason than to protect an individual's pride. If people choose to place themselves in the spotlight and enjoy the glow of their fans' admiration, they risk having the light shine too brightly on their sins. The more publicly a person speaks out, the more privacy they sell to buy the privilege of standing out in the crowd. And as much as the public has invested in any particular celebrity, they have an interest and a stake in that celebrity's life. That's the price of fame. If the "star" is not all that he/she presents to the masses, everyone is mixed up in a bad transaction involving deceit and betrayal, whether the public realizes that or not. It's still a mess. But truth brings freedom and healing, to the whole community as well as to the individuals more directly involved in a given situation. Bringing the truth out allows the celebrity to exercise humility and the public to show grace.

bill borch,LtC.USARet

Posted: April 24, 2008 6:51 PM

I appreciate the concern of the author. My sense is that exposes serve limited purposes. Personally, I am stunned to think that I have only the highest adulation for my own parents. While I assume my parents were not perfect, I would be very happy to learn that God is like my human father. They were ordinary "working" folks. Do I feel "blessed"? Other than that, if they were "flawed" I can't see that it would be anyone else's business. What ever happened to loyalty? Interestingly, that would have been my Norwegian dad's defining virtue. forestphilosopher.blogtoolkit.com

Rita	Posted: April 24, 2008 5:23 PM

I had a hard time following what the author said...there were so many words that were hard to understand. I'm really not much of a reader though. What drew me to the article is the fact that my mother just passed away and we hardly had a relationship. She did love me but it was hard to see. The fifth commandment convicts me to watch what I say about her and I try to behave. It's interesting that my mother's birthday and the "evangelist" I traveled with for eight years off and on, are on the same day. He's in prison for a sentence of ten years. No need to tell you why...but his ex-wives and nine children suffered greatly. No book is written. Forgiveness is there. Love is there. I still love everyone. They love me. That's the key.

Nathan

Posted: April 24, 2008 4:37 PM

I have not read the books, but I suspect the negative response to them is more about the religious allergy to honesty. Giving too much "gory detail" may be a legitimate critique, but exposure of the possible poisoned root of something is a service to integrity and honesty...not about some pop-psychology need to explain it away as some self-absorbed therapeutic move. And...if Frank Schaeffer feels guilt over the place he was instrumental in influencing the church to go, then good on him. Some circumspection about our behavior in the culture is in order. But I get it...a repentant heart is no good if it means we have to rethink our most precious values

Kim	Posted: April 24, 2008 3:06 PM

I think we have to look at the intent of the writer, which can be a difficult thing. If the writer is truthful and objective and led by God to expose things for God's greater purpose, that's one thing. If the writing is to "blame" the parent, it's another. At some point in time blaming our parents (or anyone else) for our own behavior isn't acceptable. We are, at some point, capable of making our own decisions in spite of the past. Granted some "pasts" are more or less difficult to get beyond, but we're still responsible for our own behavior. Blaming doesn't do a lot of good because there's always so much we don't know, even though we think we do.

AaronS

Posted: April 24, 2008 2:36 PM

Did we expect these men to be perfect? We did, didn't we? I am learning that there are people whom God has gifted in magnificent ways that have unsettling flaws in other areas. The greatest Pentecostal preacher of the 20th century (in my opinion) was on fire of heaven behind a pulpit...but as a church executive he had something of a reputation for being overly harsh and dictatorial. Not that he was sinful or such, but that he was not nearly so flawless in one area of his life as in another. We better get used to it, for it's true of everyone except Jesus, in Whom there is no flaw. Great musicians may struggle with secret sin...anointed preachers may be poor husbands...gifted soloists may be overly competitive. That's what grace is for...to make up the impossible gap between us and the perfection of Jesus.

Alison

Posted: April 24, 2008 2:22 PM

I don't think there is any similarity between these two memoirs; therefore, not that great of an editorial. Although Honor Moore's memoir was touching and sweet, Frankie's was just plain mean - I can scarcely come up with a better word than self-loathing. His writing says so much more about the flaws in his own character than the character of his parents. Having said that, it's good to know that no one is perfect - only God belongs on that pedestal - and there is something to be said about identifying faults in your upbringing that have affected your view of life or of God, and dealing with them, hopefully privately. I know the faults that plague my family history, and knowing them, I can strive to avoid repeating them. I hope Frankie finds peace.

Craig

Posted: April 24, 2008 2:16 PM

Since the author of this article didn't have the guts to put his or her name on it, I can only conclude that they have something to hide other than their theological misunderstanding of the New Testament (the one where I believe Jesus said, "Who is my mother, sister or brother...) or their amateur psychoanalysis, which they so clearly exhibited. My guess, since this article is full of guesswork, the author is ashamed that they were, or still are, an ardent supporter of Schaeffer's agendas, and rather than dealing with some of the messy, uncomfortable, and inconsistent aspects of our heroes real lives, like an adult, it is always easier to just shoot down the messenger.

Ted Hewlett

Posted: April 24, 2008 12:34 PM

I haven't read Franky Schaeffer's work on his father. But reading this article and Frank's reply to it, I am struck by the venom and immaturity Frank shows. Having written a book that apparently seeks to tear his dead father's reputation to pieces partly through psychological analyzing, he then whines shrilly when his own motives are subjected to analysis. It would have been possible, surely, to disagree with his father without indulging in the destructive approach Frank seems to have used. Admittedly I am commenting without the benefit of first-hand reading, but the CC article adds to a judgement I had already on Frank's earlier actions. He seems to have a crying need to tear down his father in order to bathe in the light of publicity that comes from doing so--a publicity that Frank could not have gained except for his father's reputation. It is honourable to honestly disagree with one's parents; it is hameful to seek to destroy their reputations to enhance one's own.

Churck

Posted: April 24, 2008 12:28 PM

Haven't read either book. However, I find it ironic that CT uses the same Freudian perspective it critiques in this article to undermine the book by Schaeffer by implying that CT has knowledge of the author's motives for writing his book - "he unveils his family's inner dynamics in order to offer a mea culpa for..." . Guinness comments are more of the same. Bottomline: if famous parents don't want their children writing "nasty" books about them, they should be better parents, the sort who give their children NO reason (good, bad or other) to want to write such a book and NO substantive content with which to fill it. Personally, I don't care what Frank thinks about Francis. But face lets face facts, the later held himself out to the world as a Christian "celebrity" of one sort or another with the result that there is a ready market for a nasty book that tells us exactly what his son Frank thinks. This not about honor thy father and mother, but parents not exasperating their children.

Howard Pepper

Posted: April 24, 2008 12:26 PM

I was an Evangelical from childhood to age 45, seminary educated, and a marriage and family counselor for 10 of those years. The main points of this article were not very clear to me. But I'll echo the comments of Keith Johnston, in that I don't, in general terms, see harm in any respectfully-intended telling of how a family's dynamic worked. Certain details may be best left out, but there is no objective standard for just what that means in a given case, and opinions will differ. Indeed, the Christian community needs more openness about the normal as well as the more dysfunctional of human feelings, reactions, and family interactions. One of the greatest failings of "the Church" is succumbing to the strong drive to deny and hide what is really going on -- from ourselves, each other, and outsiders. Of course, varying levels of disclosure are appropriate, but there's a LONG way to go before we are TOO transparent!

Stephen

Posted: April 24, 2008 11:47 AM


Can you translate into layman language? He unveils his family's inner dynamics in order to offer a mea culpa for manipulating his father into shilling for the Religious Right. In CT's sister magazine Books & Culture, Schaeffer intimate Os Guinness called the book "a death-dealing charge of hypocrisy and insincerity at the very heart of their life and work."

Page: 1

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment