My Interview with Religious Right Founder's Son, Frank Schaeffer

by Karen Hatter | September 30, 2009 at 07:30 am
622 views | 68 Recommendations | 17 comments

Videos

Frank Schaeffer Warns The Religious Right

see larger video

sourced by Karen Hatter

Frank Schaeffer Warns The Religious Right

Photos

Interview with Frank Schaeffer | Photo 02

Interview with Frank Schaeffer | Photo 02

see larger image

uploaded by Karen Hatter

New York Times best selling author Frank Schaeffer is the son of the late Francis A. Schaeffer, considered to be the father of the Religious Right movement.


He has written of his life and experiences, travelling with his father, helping to 'spread the word' within the evangelical community, producing the series, How Should We Then Live?.


Mr. Schaeffer left the movement in the 1980s and began writing of his experiences and involvement in the movement, as he puts it “ …. in one way or another” , offering his assessment of what he believes went wrong with the direction and focus of the Religious Right.


His book, CRAZY FOR GOD: How I Grew Up As One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of It Backoffers an insider's perspective and insight into a world of which Mr. Schaeffer was an integral part.


He has written for many publications including the Washington Post, USA Today, the Baltimore Sun and the Los Angeles Times.


Mr. Schaeffer's latest book, Patience with God, is due in stores in October 20.


 


1. Mr. Schaeffer, would you please share a little about your upbringing as a child? 


Frank Schaeffer (FS): I grew up with a gift for verbal communication. Living in a household with a mother and father, Francis and Edith Schaeffer, who defended their theological ideas all day, lunch and dinner were often two or three hour long discussions. ‘Discussions’ is not really the right word since what happened was that a guest would ask a question and then Dad, Fidel Castro-like, would hold forth for several hours. 

By the time I was nine or ten, I could mimic my parents and compose an articulate answer to almost any theological question. I had a flair for vocabulary that maybe only a dyslexic, raised with no TV, by a mother who read out loud, could acquire. Adults who talked to me told my parents that I was the most well spoken child they had ever met. What they did not know was that my verbal abilities were more like a circus trick. Professional proselytizers were raising me, sweet, sincere but preoccupied proselytizers. 

On any given day, from the time I was about seven years on, you could have asked my parents where I was and they would have had no idea. They literally lost track of me, more or less forgot I existed, except at one specific time of the day. 


At bedtime, Mom read me nineteenth and early twentieth century novels by people like Louisa May Alcott and Jean Stratton Porter. Mom also read Charles Dickens, C.S. Lewis, Sherlock Holmes stories, everything by P.G. Wodehouse and all of Mark Twain, with the exception of his ramblings about why he was an atheist and his speculation about how many tens of thousands of years an angel’s orgasm lasts. Mom read every book of the Bible to me so many times I still know more about ancient <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 />Israel than modern America.


2. How did your father, Francis A. Schaeffer, come to be a founder of what is called the so called Religious Right movement?


FS: When the film series I produced on history from an evangelical point of view, How Should We Then Live?, was complete, we launched it with a massive and well-promoted seminar tour sponsored by Gospel Films. We projected our movies from a giant arc projector we trucked all over America. My parents and I flew from city-to-city on the private plane hired by the president of Gospel Films, Billy Zeoli. The majority of events were held in civic arenas.


We were in fifteen cities, including a gig in Madison Square Garden. We spoke to over forty thousand people. They would show up for a whole day, watch each half hour episode in order. Then, we had discussions led by my father. Later in the tour, I sometimes led the discussions.


Our seminars were unique. The size of the crowds would not have been unusual for evangelistic crusades or Pentecostal 'charismatic' shindigs. However, in this case, evangelicals were coming to us to watch movies about art history and to hear Dad talk about philosophy. Each event got bigger as word of mouth spread. By the end of the tour, Dad was one of the most sought after and best known evangelical leaders in the United States.


What truly motivated people was the abortion issue. Because my dad took a stand on this ahead of any other well-known evangelical leader, he became the defacto 'father' of the emerging 'Religious Right'.


3. What were the core goals of the Religious Right?


FS: Americans have experienced many cycles of religiously inspired political fervor, from the Bay State Puritans’ mix of religion and law, to the various so-called Great Awakenings, to the evangelical-inspired and led anti-slavery movement, to prohibition and the church-based antiwar movements advocating isolationism in the 1930s and early 40s, and the religiously motivated parts of the anti-Vietnam War movement.


In terms of the political cycle involving evangelicals, as it has carried forward into the twenty first century, it was my father and I who were among the first to start telling American evangelicals that God wanted them involved in the political process. The Roe v. Wade decision regarding abortion gave Dad, (Dr. C. Everett) Koop and I our platform.


Abortion became the evangelical issue. Everything else in our 'culture wars' pales by comparison. The anger we stirred up at the grass roots was not feigned but heartfelt. At first, it was not about partisan politics. It had everything to do with genuine horror at the procedure of abortion. The reaction was emotional and sincere. The issue was deliberately co-opted by the Republican Party and initially ignored by the Democratic Party.


Directly and indirectly, our Whatever Happened To The Human Race? seminars helped launch the crisis pregnancy center movement. The centers offered a practical alternative to abortion. They also became bastions of pro-life political protest and activism.


The centers became places where ordinary Americans reached out with compassionate care to literally millions of women and babies of all races and economic conditions. As of 2007, there were more than 3,000 centers across America. They also brought a growing number of Hispanic Pentecostals and former Democratic Party Roman Catholics into the Republican Party.


The crisis centers galvanized hitherto apolitical evangelicals into political action. The centers also brought Black churches, which were often liberal on other issues, into close contact with culturally conservative White evangelicals and became places where local Republican action-committees informally organized.


If things had developed slightly differently, the crisis centers could have just as easily been bastions of the Democratic Party, or at least non-political. Abortion had been mostly a 'Catholic issue' just as Bishop Sheen had said. At first, most evangelical leaders, following Billy Graham’s lead, weren’t interested in 'going political'.


When Dad asked Billy why he wasn’t taking a stand on abortion, Billy answered that he had been burnt by getting too close to Nixon, and was never going to poke his head over the ramparts of the, 'I-only-preach-the-gospel' trench again. He said he didn’t want to be 'political'.


Other evangelical leaders were similarly nervous when our films first came out, just as Dad had been nervous when I fought with him while urging him to add an anti-Supreme Court pro-life message to the end of our first film series.


Our second seminar tour to launch, Whatever Happened To The Human Race?, lost almost one million dollars. The first tour had made twice that on book sales, tapes and film rentals. We had raised around one and a half million to make Whatever Happened To The Human Race?, and another million to promote it through the tour. We lost the money because we had moved from the comfortable subjects of art, culture and theology, with abortion only tacked on in the last episodes of How Should We Then Live?, to the uncomfortable 'life issues'.


At first, the evangelical media leaders, like the editors of Christianity Today, met, Whatever Happened To The Human Race?, with stony silence. And where several years before we had looked out over crowds of thousands, early on in the second tour we could barely fill the first row of seats in the same venues. Then, things began to change.


4. How did the goals of the movement change over time?


FS: The leaders of the new Religious Right were gleefully betting on American failure. If secular, democratic, diverse and pluralistic America survived, wouldn’t that prove that we were wrong about God only wanting to bless 'Christian America'? If, for instance, crime went down dramatically in New York City, for any other reason than a reformation and revival, wouldn’t that make the prophets of doom look silly? If the economy was booming without anyone repenting, what did that mean?


(Jerry) Falwell, (Pat) Robertson, (James) Dobson and others would later use their power in ways that would have made my father throw up. Dad could hardly have imagined how they would help facilitate the instantly corrupted power-crazy new generation of evangelical pubic figures like Ralph Reed, who took money from the casino industry, while allegedly playing both sides against the middle in events related to the Abramoff Washington lobbyist scandal.


After 9/11, the public got a glimpse of the anti-American self-righteous venom that was always just under the surface of the evangelical right. Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and others declared the attack on America was a punishment from God. After the war in Iraq began, some loony group of fundamentalists started picketing the funerals of killed soldiers and screaming at bereaved fathers and mothers that God was punishing 'faggot America'. What they shouted openly was what the leaders of the Religious Right were usually too smart to state so bluntly, but it is what they had always said in private.


What began to bother me was that so many of our new 'friends' on the Religious Right seemed to be rooting for one form of apocalypse or another. In the crudest form, this was part of the evangelical fascination with the so-called end times. The worse things got, the sooner Jesus would come back. But, there was another component. The worse everything got, the more it proved that America needed saving, by us!


Long before Ralph Reed and the other bottom-feeders came on the scene, Dad got sick of “these idiots”, as he often called people like Dobson, in private. Dad said, they were"plastic"“power-hungry” and “Way too right wing, really nuts!”. He believed, as he said, “They’re using our issue to build their empires”.


5. What influences helped to shape the movement?


FS: Evangelicals weren’t politicized, at least in the current meaning of the word, until after Roe v. Wade and after Dad, Koop and I stirred them up over the issue of abortion. More than thirty years after helping to launch the evangelical pro-life movement, I am filled with bitter regret for the resultant unintended consequences of the formation of the movement.


In 2000, we elected a president who claimed he believed God created the earth and who, as president, put car manufacturers and oil company’s interests ahead of caring for that creation. We elected a 'born-again' president, who said he lived by biblical ethics, who played the dirtiest political games possible, for instance, the filthy lies his people spread to derail Senator John McCain’s presidential primary bid. We elected a pro-life Republican Party that actually did nothing to care for the pregnant women and babies they said they were concerned. Rather, they were corrupted by power and took their sincere evangelical followers for granted, playing them for suckers.


The so-called evangelical leadership, Dobson, Robertson, Falwell and all the rest also played the pro-life community for suckers. While thousands of men and women in the crisis pregnancy movement gave of themselves with tremendous and sincere sacrifice, in order to help women and babies, their evangelical 'leaders' did little more than cash in on fundraising opportunities and stir the pot so that they could keep their followers motivated. That way, the evangelical leaders could represent themselves as power brokers to the politicians willing to kowtow to them.


To the extent that the Republican Party benefited from the pro-life movement, my efforts and those of my father contributed to making the Republican congressional majorities of the 1980s and 1990s possible. We also indirectly helped make the election of Reagan, Bush Sr., and Bush Jr. possible.


6. Your father is the author of Christian Manifesto, arguably considered almost as important, to the Religious Right, as the Bible. How did this book come to be?


FS: As things got more extreme, so did Dad's views. He began to fear nothing would change so, in that book, he called for using force as need be to overthrow the 'unjust' American government that favored abortion.


7. What would you say have been the best aspects of the movement? What have been the worst?


FS: The best aspects were caring for individuals with needs, say providing help for women. The worst was the abuse of religious power put to political ends.


8. When did you decide it was necessary for you to discuss your feelings regarding your role in helping to establish the Religious Right as a force and movement within America's political landscape?


FS: I have been talking about this since 1992 when I published my first novel Portofino, which takes a look at the fundamentalists in the context of a coming of age story. I've been writing about this, in one way or another, ever since. I believe my latest book, Patience With God, really lays out the best, complete look at all that has occurred.


9. You have recently expressed concern about the rhetoric and outrage you've seen on display at townhall meetings across the United States over this past summer, saying you believed some of the rage is influenced by or emanating from within the Religious Right. Would you please explain the connection you see in relationship to the Religious Right and events of this past summer, 2009?


FS: I recently addressed aspects of this in my article, Glenn Beck and the 9/12 Marchers: Subversives from Within, appearing at the Huffington Post:


 

Ordinary folks from Planet Earth may ask why the Republican Party, right-wing activists and  members of the Religious Right seem so unreachable with mere facts let alone decency and decorum. (As the proud father of a US Marine who fought in Afghanistan, I'm particularly outraged that these people would exploit the 9/11 attacks after my son and others were prepared to give their lives in response to our enemies.)

 

As a former Religious Right leader, who was raised and home-schooled by my Evangelical-leader parents, Francis and Edith Schaeffer in the movement, let me explain just why the ordinary rules of decency don't apply to the Right these days.

 

Let me also answer this question: Who are these people?

 

Protecting Your Children From Satan

 

A big part of the answer to understanding the heightened climate of outright hate and fear of the "other"  is the home school and Christian school movement.  It is a modern incarnation of the anti-federal government ideology of earlier firebrands such as John Calhoun who was the 7th Vice President and a Southern politician in the 19th century. Calhoun embraced slavery, states' rights, limited government, and said that Americans should secede from the union if it went against their wishes. (See: "Calhoun Conservatism Raises Its Ugly Head" by Mike Lux in the Huffington Post Sept 11/09.)

 

In the early 1970s the evangelicals like my late father and James Dobson  decided that the our society had fallen so far "away from God" and so far from "America's Christian history" that it was time to metaphorically decamp to not just another country but to another planet:.  In other words virtually unnoticed by the media and mainstream political operatives, a big chunk of American society seceded from the union in all but name.

 

What they did is turn the white race-based in "Christian school" movement of the 1950s into a countercultural phenomena.  As tens of thousands of new Christian schools opened, it was no longer just about "protecting" white kids from minorities and African-Americans.  It was about protecting your children from Satan in other words the United States government's long reach through the public school system.

 

To protect your children from Satan -- in other words mainstream, open patriotic and pluralistic America -- you either kept them at home where mom and dad could teach the children right from wrong or sent them to a cloistered private evangelical/fundamentalist school. At home or in school you used curriculum prepared by the likes of James--beat-your-child-and-dare-to-discipline-Dobson, RJ-slavery-was-a-good-thing-Rushdoony, or many and other right-wing anti-American activists.  That curriculum presented "secular America" as downright evil. Hating the USA became next to godliness.

 

The Anti-American Home Schoolers Come Of Age

 

We are now several generations into this experiment of holier-than-thou withdrawal from our American mainstream culture.  If you wonder who it is that's both running and underwriting organizations such as the Family Research Council, Focus On The Family, Freedom Works and other organizers of the 9/12 March and who are the most faithful followers the likes of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh or viewers of Fox News your answer is: it's the home school/Christian school generation of men and women now hitting their thirties and even forties who might as well have been raised on a different planet.

 

What are these home school and Christian school children taught? Here's a quote from one of the far right's le ading home school curricula creators:

 

The political question is this: By what biblical standard is the pagan to be granted the right to bring political sanctions against God's people? We recognize that unbelievers are not to vote in Church elections. Why should they be allowed to vote in civil elections in a covenanted Christian nation? Which judicial standards will they impose? By what other standard than the Bible?

 

(Gary North of Institute For Christian Economics)

 

The generation raised on the belief that the US government is illegitimate because it is trying to 'impose' non-biblical laws on people has hit the streets.  These are the  people who grew up 'indoctrinated' into an alternative reality. Today they are out there waving signs of Obama dressed as Hitler. They are buying weapons and ammunition. Some are in the growing and revived militia movement. They are Dick Armey's foot soldiers. People like Armey and Beck can count on the ignorance of their dupes. It's against their religion to read a real newspaper, watch anything but Fox or go to a real school.

 

Evangelical Red Guards

 

Over the last 30 years Evangelical fundamentalists have managed to do what Chairman Mao failed to do with his Red Guards: indoctrinate a whole generation of evangelical people 'to see their own society as the enemy' and act like subversives from within the culture. These people are as anti-American as Al- Qaeda.  The "Christian Reconstruction" movement is working for  theocracy. Reconstructionism (of which Gary North is one leader) says that the law given for the political and legal ordering of ancient Israel is intended for all people at all times.

 


Thank you, Mr. Schaeffer, for sharing your insight and your time.


 


Mr. Schaeffer’s website is FRANKSCHAEFFER.com.


 

  

 

 



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

recommend Add a comment
1
Roy C

Half of Evangelical Christians voted for Obama. That is where the stereotype falls apart. There is no unified Evangelical Christian political movement, and while there are dysfunctional aspects to the more orthodox Christian right, they are not limited to the right, nor to Christians, as we well know.

The violence of the Bay Area in the 1970s was 99% from the left.


3
Karen Hatter

From the NYTimes.com:

Nationwide, most white evangelicals remained in the Republican camp despite misgivings they voiced about the depth of Senator John McCain’s commitment to a conservative social agenda. Mr. McCain, of Arizona, held 74 percent of the white evangelical vote, compared with 24 percent for Mr. Obama — a gain of only three percentage points over Mr. Kerry.

4
albertacowpoke

Excellent post.  Thanks for this Karen.  It makes for an interesting read.

0
Karen Hatter

Thank you, Cowpoke.

10
rng

Good article, Karen thanks. As to the political agenda of the evangelical right, take a look at the 36+ religious groups that have aligned to oppose health care reform , Freedom Foundation (but an antithesis of its name really)..all grouped, despite the fact that they would otherwise differ theologically and doctrinally, on opposition to paid abortion (even though it isn't in any bills). While there is a spread in the evangelical movement, a lot of it right of center, and much of it is a negative influence on US society IMHO.

0
Karen Hatter

Thank you, Rng, for the praise and the additional information.

I concur with your stated assessment as well.

1
QueensHart

This is an interesting  read Karen..  Thank You.  Many Christian organizations do not even subscribe to Christianity Today.  Is it  a profit making magazine? I do not agree tho that the "right" (meaning republicans ?) is the big bad wolf of Christianity.  I was a protestant growing up and I honestly never heard anyone say  Shaeffer  is the Father of a movement.  I think he is a presbyterian?  Christ following people should not be stereotyped or persecuted because of the media seeking christians.

.   The only person I would call a  "Father" of a christian movement was Billy Graham who tried to stay away from Politics. Power corrupts as we all know so when a religious leader starts preaching to masses one does wonder why he thinks only "he" is qualified to do it? 

There are many false prophets that can teach the "Bible" back and forth but actually be very unaware of their shadow.  The Heavens Gate fisaco used Revelation.  Jim Jones. Tammy Baker and husband.  There are some real freaks out there.  I turned a station on and saw a women sitting on a throne with a pastel pink wig on that made Dolly Parton look like..."boring?"  they all are selling something in the name of Christ and God have mercy on them for perverting the truth of Jesus the Christ.

I am just trying to say Karen I would be careful about mocking people who believe in JesusChrist.  >>Not that you are "mocking" but to put them all in the "right wing political"room is what I refer too...rather the son is.

Saying evangelicals are equivalent to red guard tho does sound like  liberal hogwash

3
Karen Hatter

Billy Graham founded Christianity Today magazine in 1956. He is currently honorary chairman at Christianity Today.

1
Roy C

Didn't the Red Guard kill one million people in the mid-20th century for their idol of the left, Mao Tse-tung?

Sounds like the Red Guard talking when someone describes this mediocre group as a major threat.

That is what the Red Guard conducted: a civil war on the inspiration of Mao Tse-tung's fourth wife, the actress, the infamous "Gang of Four",  from which all "Gang(s) of ..." get their name.


2
Roy C

Weren't all the major Abolitionists, such as John Brown, inspired to abolish slavery by virtue of what they learned from their Christian religion?

The men and women held as slaves in the South also found, not just comfort, but the power and courage from Christianity's teachings so that they could challenge their so-called Christian masters.

Christian Great Britain abolished the slave trade, while Muslim African countries continued it.

Even today, the continent with the greatest number of slaves is Africa and the religion that accepts slavery is still the Muslim religion.


The Arab slave trade was most active in West Asia, North Africa and East Africa. By the end of the 19th century, such activity had reached a low ebb. In the early 20th century (post World War I) slavery was gradually outlawed and suppressed in Muslim lands, largely due to pressure exerted by Western nations such as Britain and France.[3] However, slavery claiming the sanction of Islam is documented presently in the African republics of Chad, Mauritania, Niger, Mali and Sudan.[9][10][11]

9
Karen Hatter

During the centuries Europe and the New World were involved in the slave trade, dispersing millions of African men, women and children throughout the world, the majority of the Christian world supported, was involved in and benefited from the African slave trade.

It was often customary to baptize and christen captured Africans as they were herded aboard slaving ships, destined to be sold into slavery in the New World, providing they were among the 1/2 to 2/3 of the human cargo that survived the Middle Passage.

The number of survivors was dependent upon provisions, insurance considerations and whether the people were packed using the tight or loose pack method.

The conversion of enslaved Africans to Christianity was desired, with Europeans and former Europeans now residing in the New World believing enslaved Africans would be easier to control.

Passages from the Bible, stressing duty to the Master(s) by the enslaved, were frequently taught and quoted, used as a tool to indoctrinate those held into obedient, benign servitude, encouraging the enslaved to toil without complaint during their earthly plane of existence in order to claim their 'reward' for being a 'good slave' after death. 

After the founding of the United States, 1776, the U.S. Constitution allowed the importation of Africans for enslaving until 1808.

The last known import of African people aboard a ship was accomplished by a specially refitted yacht, the Wanderer, travelling to the Congo in July of 1858.

The ship was packed with approximately 500 African captives, many of whom died before arriving in the United States in October 1858.

The intercept of slaving ships along the coast of Africa continued into the 1860s, with many of the ships flying the U.S. flag.

1
mh08

Better to be anti-american than anti-Christ.

4
Barry Artiste

Excellent read Karen

0
Karen Hatter

Thank you, Barry.

0
QueensHart

I am curious, this is the second time your  story was posted  Sept 30th?   Can everyone re post stories?

0
Karen Hatter

Queenshart, this interview was not reposted nor was it edited by myself since it was first posted.

2
Karen Hatter

From Absoluteastronomy.com:

Atlantic slave trade Only a few decades after the discovery of America by Europeans, demand for cheap labor to work plantations made slave-trading a profitable business. The peak time of slave ships to the Atlantic passage was between the 17th and 18th century when large plantations developed in the English colonies of North America.

In order to achieve profit, the owners of the ships divided their hulls into holds with little headroom, so they could transport as many slaves as possible. Unhygienic conditions, dehydration, dysentery and scurvy led to a high mortality rate, up to a third of captives. Only the most resilient survived the transport. Often the ships transported hundreds of slaves, who were chained tightly to plank beds. For example, the slave ship "Henrietta Marie" carried about 200 slaves on the long Middle Passage. They were
confined to cargo holds with each slave chained with little room to move.
Slaveshipposter


 

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.

What is NowPublic?

NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.

Find out more

Crowd Power

Jordan Yerman
First Flagged at 7:39 AM, Sep 30, 2009 by Jordan Yerman
These members have powered this story:

Related Stories

Recommendations (68)

Most recently recommended by:
 

closeSign in to NowPublic

is reporting from