Sound arguments can’t compete with good feelings.
Good feelings are stronger motivators than sound arguments.
Sound arguments can’t compete with good feelings.
Good feelings are stronger motivators than sound arguments.
These days politics requires incessant posturing to such a level of precision that no one can assume an opponent has said anything remotely correct about any detail of policy. Only barbed messages of radical certainty, please.
This post continues a critique of Frank Schaeffer’s Christmas Eve article in Salon.com. Please also see Part One and Part Two of this series.
I had a mixed reaction to the following sentence by Schaeffer:
“I was friends with the Human Life Review founder and editor: brilliant Roman Catholic anti-abortion crusader Jim McFadden.”
It’s the only time, in an article of approximately 2,224 words, Schaeffer calls anyone “brilliant,” or calls anyone within the conservative movement anything remotely positive.
I was happy to see that pro-choice Schaeffer would still, these days, identify an “anti-abortion crusader” as “brilliant.” Aside from President Obama, everyone else in the article is either condemned on his own merits or damned by his association with the conservative movement, particularly the anti-abortion vein within the movement.
What’s missing, however, is a balanced assessment of Schaeffer’s own late father Francis Schaeffer, who over the course of decades was a compassionate and humane pastor to numerous troubled and searching young people.
It’s incredible to me that in an article about abortion, Schaeffer continues with the same polarized, all-or-nothing, black-or-white-and-no-grayscale thinking that marked his tenure as a conservative, anti-abortion evangelical.
In an article in which Schaeffer deploys the word “extremist” as an undesirable epithet, isn’t it kind of strange that he has swung from one extreme to another? In the article, he makes no qualification of his current pro-choice point of view. The difficulty with that has everything to do with Schaeffer’s strange moves around the issue of abortion, and almost nothing to do with the issue itself. Consider, for a moment, the extreme poles of the abortion debates:
– A newly fertilized egg is fully human, not potentially human, and ending its growth is just like first-degree homicide of a (born) child.
– An unborn fetus can be ethically and morally terminated as long as it is in a woman’s body, (including) throughout the third trimester.
So, while glossing over a complicated and complex issue to make a self-agrandizing public confession and to throw Dad under the bus, Schaeffer seems to have swung from one exasperatingly extremist position to another exasperatingly extremist position. Worse yet, Schaeffer takes the extremist position of maligning his Dad for his position on one issue.
Meanwhile, Frank Schaeffer ignores the significant, compassionate help offered by the late Francis Schaeffer to the hundreds (a safe guess?) of people who circulated through L’Abri Fellowship in Huemoz, Switzerland, who heard his humane lectures that took contemporary film, literature, and philosophy seriously — something his fellow Presbyterians were very, very rarely inclined to do. That might be why the late Francis and Edith Schaeffer’s small decision to open their Huemoz home eventually became a larger fellowship with branches in different countries.
Of course Frank Schaeffer had his own experiences with his late father.
Of course he has a privileged insight into the movement in which he worked.
But Schaeffer’s article is not just one-sided but singularly based upon a faulty premise (see Part One). The article brings to mind a line from a Blues Traveler song: “…a bad play where the heroes are right / And nobody thinks or expects too much.”
Schaeffer has inaccurately assessed the Tea Party movement, overlooked obvious complexities in abortion ethics, and oversimplified his late father’s generally good legacy.
I suspect Frank Schaeffer’s fundamental self has not changed. He’s still a desperate guy deploying extremist rhetoric to get attention. He’s just looking for someone to listen to him, and he seems willing to place any content within the vehicle of his extremist rhetoric, in an attempt to be heard.
Let’s begin this installment with the following excerpt from Schaeffer’s article:
Fast-forward 30 years to the early 21st century: The messengers, leaders and day-to-day “issues” changed. For instance, we were into taking away a woman’s right to choose. Today it’s about gay bashing and denying climate change — and now the nakedly racist anti-immigrant movement threat is part of the reaction to the black man in the White House.
Schaeffer’s mention of “denying climate change” is incredibly unfair and exasperating.
Whatever environmental concern can be found in the evangelical movement owes itself at least in part to Schaeffer’s father. The late Francis Schaeffer’s book Pollution and the Death of Man (1970), co-authored with Udo Middelmann, made Christian environmentalism and, by extension, acknowledgment of climate change, possible and intellectually respectable within upper levels of the evangelical movement, if not always among the rank and file.
Oddly enough, when I attended a 1999 L’Abri Conference in Greensboro, North Carolina, Tim Keyes, one of the sons of L’Abri leaders Dick and Mardi Keyes, gave a presentation — to an auditorium full of avid Francis Schaeffer fans — about the biblical, Christian reasoning behind concern for the environment. I’ll take that as evidence not only of the impact of Pollution and the Death of Man, but also of its continuing influence. (I say all this, of course, with the backdrop of my own frustrations with the word “biblical” and its variety of referents.)
So with irresponsible writing and sweeping rhetoric, Franky carelessly associates his environmentally sensitive father with climate-change denial. That is a fundamentally indecent and inaccurate thing to do.
Schaeffer seems more and more like a sensationalist. The tricks he once appropriated for the religious right he now has re-appropriated in a quest to ingratiate himself to the conventional left. His thinking is unclear and irrational, no matter in whose service he employs it.
In Part Three, I’ll explain Frank Schaeffer’s oversimplification and degradation of his father’s legacy. I hope to show how Franky has made anti-abortion politics his late father’s unforgivable sin, while ignoring Francis Schaeffer’s many decent and humanizing accomplishments.
For the record, I’ve been an admirer of Frank Schaeffer — both Frank Schaeffer Past and Frank Schaeffer Present.
That admiration, however, doesn’t blind me to his inexcusably horrible Christmas Eve article at Salon.com.
In the article, he criticizes his and his late father’s anti-abortion efforts in the 1970s and 1980s. He claims he and his late Dad are responsible for making the Republican Party an “extremist” organization, and for making the Tea Party movement happen. He also apologizes for doing so.
Again, for the record, I’ve been a fan of his father, too. The late Francis Schaeffer founded L’Abri Fellowship, the Greatham, England, branch of which still has a warm place in my heart, even if I’m more doubtful and skeptical (and less conservative) than I used to be, as many recent posts here testify.
My intersections with L’Abri as well as the writings of Frank Schaeffer and his late father were not political. They were refreshing and life-giving to me, attentive to the arts and philosophy as they were, and so they really helped me at specific times.
My departure from my own past involvement with the religious right makes me more likely to appreciate Frank Schaeffer’s departure from the same. So when I began to read Schaeffer’s article at Salon.com, I wanted to find something good to mull over.
But instead, what I read was irrational and indecent.
Just for radical clarity, I rejoiced at several sentences in his article, including, “You see, only in the Mafia, the British Royal family and big time American religion is a nepotistic rise to power seen as normal.” Ha-ha and amen to that!
I also shared Schaeffer’s disgust with the smug power-plays in the overlapping zone where the Republican Party and the evangelical priestly class mingle.
And here is Schaeffer’s knock-out punch, an excellent right-hook that should have appeared in a decent article:
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! Plus, it was good for fundraising.
YES, that is so friggin’ true.
But I’m still dismayed and astonished by Schaeffer’s abuses of rhetoric and misuses of his own credibility.
Let’s take a look.
First, if you haven’t already, read Schaeffer’s article.
Then, closely mark what Schaeffer says in the following two early sections of the article:
This zealous negativity has a long history. I was part of it as the nepotistic sidekick to my religious-right evangelist father. The 1970s Evangelical anti-abortion movement that Dad (Evangelical leader Francis Schaeffer), C. Everett Koop (who would be Ronald Reagan’s surgeon general) and I helped create seduced the Republican Party. We turned it into an extremist far-right party that is fundamentally anti-American. There would have been no Tea Party without the foundation we built….
You can’t understand why the GOP was so successful in winning back both houses of congress in 2014, and wrecking most of what Obama has tried to do, unless you understand what we did back then.
Schaeffer’s nonfiction, here and elsewhere, is full of hyperbole. The phrase “extremist far-right party” is just one example, a phrase that only applies if one is looking only at America with only conventional, contemporary perspectives, in other words, looking as if some perfectly moral social norm had always existed and the GOP is unique in its political transgressions.
More importantly, notice how Schaeffer conflates the Republican Party and the Tea Party movement. The Republican Party (a.k.a. GOP) is an “extremist far-right party,” yet strangely enough, the Tea Party was unhappy with Mitt Romney as the official candidate.
So, the GOP has been taken over by Tea Party extremists who weren’t able to control the presidential nominee? Apparently, a group can take over a party without controlling the party. That doesn’t make sense, but that’s what Schaeffer is saying.
The heart of Schaeffer’s article deals with abortion. He assumes, wrongly, that today’s conservative movement within the GOP had everything to do with his and his father’s anti-abortion efforts. I can’t decide if that move is an oversimplification or a gross generalization or a bogus claim.
I’m leaning toward “bogus claim.” Anyone familiar with the conservative movement knows National Review founder William F. Buckley, Jr., presidential candidate and senator Barry Goldwater, and author and professor Russell Kirk were crafting the movement long before Schaeffer & Son decided to get evangelicals fired-up about abortion. Maybe it’s a bogus claim combined with a side of self-importance.
The problems with Schaeffer’s assumptions about abortion, the Tea Party movement, and the GOP don’t stop there.
I don’t recall seeing anti-abortion signs in media coverage of Tea Party events. Of course it stands to reason I missed some, but I thought the T-E-A in Tea Party stood for “Taxed Enough Already,” which was a clever way to allude to the original Boston Tea Party anti-tax revolt, which was fundamentally foundational to America.
But anti-abortion politics are not foundational to the Tea Party. In the TeaParty.org’s “15 Non-Negotiable Core Beliefs,” not one mention is made of abortion.
Schaeffer’s premise for the article is his culpability for the entire Tea Party movement because of his and his Dad’s work as anti-abortion activists. Yet the Tea Party movement didn’t list it.
So Schaeffer (guiltily) takes credit for providing the seedbed for today’s Tea Party movement. This is his zaniest move. He assumes that the pro-life evangelical influence in the Republican Party walks hand-in-hand with anti-tax and anti-regulation folks.
He completely misses or ignores the real aggravations experienced by every-day people who were going about their business only to discover they’d violated a jot or a tittle in some inane law known only to busybody bureaucrats.
Maybe Schaeffer could scroll through Reason‘s frequently updated Brickbat blog to learn more about absurdities that fuel at least a healthy portion of the current anti-government backlash.
Instead, he subtly ties anti-government feelings to racism, as if the black people who have been screwed by their own government would just continue to support their government.
Of course, it’s easy and hip to peg the anti-government backlash on racism while the first black president is in office, and apparently the Salon.com editors, much like Schaeffer, don’t find it necessary to think beyond their own implicit political biases to the possibility that someone, somewhere, might just disagree with an Obama policy because of the policy.
But to clear things up, Franky could tell us why — in his post-evangelical, post-anti-abortion life — he (by apparent default) supports so many invasions of privacy outside the womb. He could go through each absurdity in the Brickbat blog and defend it, and then he could get back to accusing Them and Those and other random strangers of being racists.
(I’m glad you’ve overcome your own implicit biases, Franky. You can be proud of that, too, while you’re patting yourself on the back for throwing your Dad under the bus — justified violence in your mind, I’m sure.)
Schaeffer’s remarks about the anti-immigration movement as “part of the reaction to a black man in the White House” are baseless, unless ignorance counts as a basis for saying something.
Schaeffer apparently wrote his article without looking at the TeaParty.org’s “15 Non-Negotiable Core Beliefs” page, which most certainly deals with immigration, just not in the way the reader is led believe.
On that “nakedly racist” page we find, among others, Dr. Ben Carson and Lt. Col. Allen West, who, like the president, are black. “Nakedly racist” is a radically inaccurate description of the movement.
No one is accusing Schaeffer of being a racist just because he is a white guy who opposes black Tea Party leaders Dr. Ben Carson and Lt. Col. Allen West. That would be ridiculous — and inaccurate, and irrational.
But, unfortunately, Schaeffer is just that ridiculous throughout most of his article.
He uses an old trick among inflammatory political activists of all stripes: When you disagree with someone, lob a rhetorical hand grenade in his direction.
In the mind of an inflammatory activist like Schaeffer, a racially diverse group can be called “racist” because Salon.com’s editors and Franky won’t let accuracy get in the way of their special beliefs. Truth is chased-down and run-over by strong feelings.
(People can have all kinds of strong feelings. Some are found in stadiums and some in churches and some in mental wards.)
As a writer, pro-government Schaeffer could also defend the government’s decision to spy on an Associated Press office and to steal telephone records from reporters.
But no, instead, he’s subtly defending the Obama administration, which includes the Justice Department that broke the law and pissed on the First Amendment while spying on the Associated Press and stealing protected, confidential information from reporters. It’s irrational to support such a government.
And notice how Schaeffer smuggles in the assumption that everything Obama has done has been golden.
He writes, “You can’t understand why the GOP was so successful in winning back both houses of congress in 2014, and wrecking most of what Obama has tried to do, unless you understand what we did back then.” (emphasis added)
Buried therein is an assumption about Obama’s work even Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi would question on their most kind-hearted days!
But that’s not stopping Schaeffer, who makes his appeal to the Salon.com crowd and then drives it full-speed into grotesque pandering.
I didn’t think smart people did that kind of thing. I thought Franky was smart. There’s a syllogism brewing here, but you can work it out for yourself.
Next time, we’ll look at even more egregious indecencies in Schaeffer’s article.
Contrast this excerpt from the New York Times (which deals with formal charges against Pastor Mark Driscoll, filed by 21 former pastors in the Mars Hill Church organization) —
In a written statement, Anthony Ianniciello, Mars Hill’s executive pastor of media and communications, said, “We take any complaint or allegation against Pastor Mark and Mars Hill very seriously, and everything is and will be examined by several governing bodies.”
He also pointed to a statement the church’s board issued last week, saying, “The attitudes and behaviors attributed to Mark in the charges are not a part and have not been a part of Mark’s life for some time now.” [emphasis added]
— With the following excerpt of the formal complaint filed by those 21 pastors formerly in Pastor Mark Driscoll’s organization —
So, what have we learned?
We’ve learned that the church’s board thinks Pastor Mark Driscoll’s subhuman behavior has been submerged “for some time now.”
Meanwhile, the small above portion of the formal charges extends from far in the past through May of this year.
So, one side says Mark is a bullying jerk today, and the other side seems to be saying Mark hasn’t been a bullying jerk for a while, “for some time now.”
What does “for some time now” mean, and why did these allegedly godly men float such an ambiguous phrase?
Does it mean the board is lying on Driscoll’s behalf?
Does it mean the board members are trying to mislead anyone who would care to read their statement?
Are they using the phrase “for some time now” to give themselves an “out”?
For example, “We weren’t lying. We didn’t specify a particular length of time, so we’re cool.”
What is it that they say about the bad apple spoiling the bunch? Has Driscoll turned his entire board into replicas of himself?
Just remember — weasels use weasel words.
And weasels are more successful in politics and business than, say, those lame “let-your-yes-be-yes-and-your-no-be-no” types.
Whatever the reason behind such a vapid phrase, the church board should now be as discredited as Driscoll himself. The entire Mars Hill Church experiment deserves no greater regard than the sleaziest TV preacher’s donation hotline.
After all, Driscoll has plagiarized and bullied with the intent of maintaining a reputation as a godly man.
No sane person would stand by him. Even Tim Keller, quoted in the New York Times article, has been hit in the back of the head by discernment — after the fact, of course, as discernment never happens when anyone needs to avoid danger.
But what special powers of identifying danger after the disaster. Wow. That’s somethin’.
Kind of like Sovereign Grace Ministries, Inc., which allegedly had no discernment about pedophiles operating in their midst for years and years. I’m sure the Holy Spirit was awake and all, just not inside all those Specially Anointed Godly Men With Spiritual Authority Over Your Life.
I know, I know, I’m missing the real takeaway points here:
If only Driscoll were in elected office. Then he would face jail time. But since it’s Christianity, someone eventually will give him a pulpit again, along with more mechanisms to screw people.
It’s easier to forgive than to discern the wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Oh praise the Lord and pass the bottle. I could be referring to Pepto Bismol, so you can’t say I meant alcohol — see, I can even learn from Mars Hill Church’s board.
Update, July 1, 2 p.m.: This Religion News Service article, published in The Washington Post this past January in anticipation of yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling, explains the controversy about how the words “contraception” and “abortifacient” are used — and, in fairness, demonstrates why my definition of “abortifacient” below is not shared by everyone. (Basically, some say an abortifacient does its work after fertilization of the egg, while others say an abortifacient does its work after implantation of the fertilized egg.) Also available is this New York Times article which annotates the ruling and illuminates some of the nuances of Justice Alito’s thinking. For me, two particularly interesting quotations were, first, “As we will show, Congress provided protection for people like the Hahns and Greens by employing a familiar legal fiction: It included corporations within RFRA’s definition of ‘persons.’ ” And second, “…it seems unlikely that the sort of corporate giants to which HHS refers will often assert RFRA claims.”
Following today’s 5-4 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, Hobby Lobby employees keep insurance coverage for 16 forms of contraception.
Hobby Lobby employees lose insurance coverage for 4 abortifacients.
Contraception prevents conception, which is the fertilization of an egg.
Abortion ends the fertilized egg or the resulting fetus. An abortifacient is a medicine or device that causes abortion, typically in an early phase.
People who believe in government funding of abortions probably will be upset that Hobby Lobby employees have lost insurance coverage for 4 abortifacients.
However, as the phrase “birth control” and the word “contraception” are used in the discussions following today’s SCOTUS decision, a confusion of terms can be very inaccurate.
Owners of the “closely held” company known as Hobby Lobby did not oppose contraception, or the prevention of pregnancy.
The owners of Hobby Lobby opposed abortifacients, or the use of medicine or devices that end the growth of a fertilized egg.
It’s a safe guess that the Hobby Lobby owners believe human life begins at conception, and they believe that based on their religious beliefs.
But it’s absurd to say that the owners get between an employee and abortifacients.
Hobby Lobby employees can still buy abortifacients.
The owners don’t want to contribute to abortifacients, and now, as a result of today’s Supreme Court ruling, they don’t have to.
The strange rhetoric of our times often conflates “not paying for” with “preventing.”
This evening, I have not paid for millions of 20-something ladies to have adult beverages.
I guess that means I’m preventing millions of 20-something ladies from drinking.
Oh well. I guess there’s no shorter path to political incorrectness than accuracy.