Archive for the ‘Frank Schaeffer’ Category

frank schaeffer

I have written on Franky Schaeffer in our blog before where we looked at the irrational things he has said in public.  He’s the son of the late Christian apologist and evangelist Francis Schaeffer.  Franky himself is an apostate has spent much time and energy attacking his father and the Evangelical faith of his father.

I just found out that his latest book is titled “WHY I AM AN ATHEIST WHO BELIEVES IN GOD.”  Most people would think, “Is that logically possible?”  Frank in a video recorded book discussion have said that he intentionally had a provocative title to make people think and:

Basically telling people that first of all labels are Nonsense.

He’s not the only one that says something like this.  I had flashback of hipster Emergents, old College hippie professors, etc., when I heard Franky say that.

What are Franks’ reasons for why he thinks labels are nonsense?  He’s explained:

“Because you may describe yourself one thing today but give it twenty years and you may well look at yourself as something else.  And we all change in our journey.”

And in his dribbling monologue he’s also talked about the need to embrace paradox rather than resolve everything.

I want to address this issue since it’s bigger than him and many people throw this or something similar out there during religious discussions.

1.) Whenever I hear someone say labels are categorically nonsense I always want to show them a picture of this:


A picture is worth a thousand words.  Seriously, labels are nonsense?

2.) Secondly, Frank’s first reason for why labels are nonsense does not logically follow.  Just because people do change over time this does not necessarily mean labels are in of itself nonsense.  Sure, people twenty years from now may change in their views of themselves and what they believe but that doesn’t mean labels are in of itself are nonsense.  It just means one might change “labels” even if that label is something different than the previous label or those labels are different from the larger segment of the population.  Go change labels a hundred times that still doesn’t mean labels are nonsense!

3.)  Frank’s second reason for why labels are nonsense is equally problematic.  Just because there are paradoxes in life that one must embrace surely does not logically follow that labels are nonsense and ought to be categorically rejected. What about two paradoxical labels?  Should we embrace them (give his call to embrace paradox)?  Or should we reject them because they are labels?  We have here a rational/irrational tension.  Note here that Frank’s second reason is talking about a different subject (paradox) and not the issue at hand of why labels are nonsense.  A categorical fallacy.

4.) Paradoxes won’t exists if two or more objects are at minimum in a contrary tension (I don’t think paradoxes must necessarily be in actual contradictory relationship).  People often use shorthand terms to denote things, and when we identify paradoxes we are saying two or more things share a tension in their relationships.  Notice denoting things is an act of “labelling.”  Thus to talk about paradox one are already engage in the act of giving labels.

4.) As an example of point four, look at his own author-talk where Frank does the same thing.  His talk goes on about the problem of the label love and hate and yet he talks about “hating less” is an act of “love.”  Even for an anti-label guy like Frank, he’s incurably using labels.

5.) Someone might object that Frank does not refer to “labels” as the act of denoting, naming, defining something but rather sterotyping something.  But that does not seem to be case because as one seen in the quote above, Frank talks about how the labels we give ourselves changes.  I don’t think Frank is saying we are sterotyping ourselves ignorantly.  His talk in the beginning makes it pretty clear he does not like “Certainty Addicts” who wants him to define things.  Frank is against the very act of defining things.

6.) Concerning “labeling” as sterotyping people, isn’t ironic that Frank’s writing always engage in labeling others in that sense of the term?  Within that Huffington Post I linked, note how he labels pro-science advocates and fundamentalists: “Somewhere between the sterile, absolute, and empty formulas of reductionist, totalitarian science and the earnest, hostile, excessively certain make-believe of religious fundamentalism, there is a beautiful place.”

7.) By the way, rejecting a bad and negative label does not mean one should reject labeling in the first sense of the term.

8.) Per point five, since Frank is against the act of labeling in the sense of defining things, he’s destroyed in his own worldview the ability to communicate since words must mean something and not mean its opposite, etc.  But he doesn’t really believe that inside even though he claims it because he’s still communicating with words the words that undermine the intelligibility and meaningfulness of those words.  Franks’ father had a mentor who would have noted the folly and suppression of the truth in Frank’s apostate antinominian atheist worldview.

Frank’s rejection of labels is nonsense.

Read Full Post »

There is something not right in the head with Frank Schaeffer, the son of Francis Schaeffer who has left his Evangelical faith.

He may no longer be crazy for God (a title of one of his book), but that does not mean Franky is no longer crazy (see the backlog of Veritas Domain’s entry on Franky by clicking HERE.).

In an interview on MSNBC on July 6th, 2011, Franky makes the accusation that the Tea Party movement is racist.  I quote,

Barack Obama is going to be reelected and reelected with a big margin, because I think that people understand, a lot of ordinary Americans who aren’t on the religious right understand something and that is as the first African-American president, he has been up against a racist white bloc in the Republican Party that has come dressed as the Tea Party,  the religious right, all sorts of excuses.

Franky’s argument seems to be propelled by more heat than light–more fallacies such as ad hominem attacks seen above, than actual content of substance.

Besides the ad hominem fallacy Franky commits, I also thought it is rather ironic that he can call the Tea Party racists in light of recent news with the presidential campaign.  If picture are worth a thousand words, Henry Payne’s cartoon communicates ten thousand more words concerning Frank Schaeffer’s outlandish assertion and slanderous lies.


Read Full Post »

Frank Schaeffer, the son of Francis Schaeffer has pretty much turn against his father’s legacy (theology and worldview) and made a name for himself base upon bashing his father.

I don’t know about you, but when I hit his age, I don’t want to be known by the world as a man who hates his father and can’t make any contribution to society without trying to be a parasite of the very father you hate.  That’s just sad–whether it’s a rebelling teenager and even more so for a grown man that’s a grandpa.

The subject of Frank Schaeffer’s irrational attack against Evangelical Christianity and worldview is not a new topic on Veritas Domain.  He often engages in the sloppy fallacy of guilt by association in his argumentation, in the most unsophisticated and angry form.  For instance,  back in April 1st, 2010 Frak wrote a piece in his column for Huffington Post titled, “The Evangelical Mainstream Insanity Behind the End Times Michigan Militia” in which he tied a militia that wants to kill cops back to his dad and himself back in his Evangelical days.  No surprise there if you have followed Frank for any time, everything bad supposedly comes from Franky and his father.  It’s as if Franky would want you to believe that the root of all evil is his father.  Frank writes,

A federal prosecutor in Michigan says authorities decided to arrest members of the Hutaree Christian militia after learning “they were prepared to kill.”

When I first learned of the news I went to the Hutaree Militia homepage and was struck by the fact that their site included links to a number of evangelical “End Times” sites like that of the Jack Van Impe ministries.

In the 1970s and 80s I appeared several times with Jack Van Impe on his TV program. His act was to predict the “imminent” return of Jesus. My act was to raise money for my latest far religious right effort to make abortion illegal.

As the son of well known evangelicals and far right leader Francis Schaeffer I was in the middle of the chain of events that led to the arrests of men prepared to kill cops for Jesus. The rhetoric we in the early pro-life movement unleashed combined, with the apocalyptic fantasies of the fundamentalist evangelicals, is a deadly brew.

From the above quote, readers will see that Frank believes his father and him were in the chain of events behind this dangerous militia, along with some quarters of the Pop Dispensationalist’s Evangelicals.

Frank also see these Pop Dispensationalist contribute to the birth of the Tea Party, something Schaeffer totally despises:

Knowingly or unknowingly, Jenkins and LaHaye cashed in on years of evangelical/fundamentalists’ imagined victim-hood –something that is now key to understanding the Tea Party movement.

Frank’s conclusion to his piece then makes the comparison of the Michigan militia to the Tea Party, with the assertion that the Tea Party movement shares in this violent ideology (and suggestion that they are morally culpable for it):

The truth is that the “crazies” in Michigan are just acting on what millions of evangelicals say they believe and I don’t only mean about the so called End Times. I also mean that these days the Tea Party movement is spouting a rhetoric of doom and extremism that holds that the American government and even the nation is no longer legitimate. Add in the theology and you have a self-fulfilling “prophecy” of Armageddon. Sadly we have not seen the last of such actions.

Of course, Frank’s argument runs totally on the bandwagoning fallacy, from bandwagoning his father to the Militia, Pop Dispensationalists to his dad, the Militia to the Pop Dispensationalists, the Pop Dispensationalist to the Tea Party and finally the Tea Party to the Militia, and since a subset of these (the militia) has planned to carry out violence therefore all these are dangerous and ought to be rejected because of their “similarities.”


It might not be easy for Franky to see the fallacies because of his passionate emotion, so I thought it best be illustrated by applying his own standard back to himself with his current views.  Enter in the Occupy Movement.

This movement has been plagued with violence and all sorts of problem, whether it’s at Wall Street, Washington DC, San Francisco or Portland.

Some have been so consume by their ideology, they will even push an old lady down:

And block handicaps from getting out:

Some have attacked officers by stabbing them,  been arrested for carrying explosives, rape in Philadelphia, sexual assaults elsewhere, interfering with other’s freedom of assembly, hurting businesses, comitting crimes such as vandalism, tresspassing,  theft, pooping everywhere, urinating everywhere, etc.

Is Huffington Post responsible for all of this, since to borrow Schaeffer’s reasoning (but with different referents plugged in):

Knowingly or unknowingly, Huffington Post cashed in on years of Progressive and Liberal imagined victim-hood –something that is now key to understanding the Occupy movement.

And since Franky has been with Huffington Post for years, blogging for them, writing against the 1% and others who are rich, Republican or religious in blogs, books and articles, can we say that the Occupy Wall Street is acting out what he believes?

Frank might say that all these bad things about Occupy Wall Street has been done by a few fringe trying to hijack the movement, whether Marxists, anarchists or plain old bad people.  But if he reason that way making this fine distinction, can he do the same when it comes those on the more conservative spectrum as well?

As much as Franky talk and talk about the Tea Party will be violent, Occupy Wall Street has BEEN much more criminal and violent.

Will Franky come out and condemn the Occupy Movement and expose it’s danger?  And more importantly, will he own up to his hypocrisy?

Read Full Post »

Frank Schaeffer has written on June 17th, 2010 a piece titled, “Eradicate Fundamentalism in all it’s form”

Gary DeMar of American Vision ministries responds below, via Youtube

Over the  years I have blogged on Frank Schaeffer.  You can access other entries HERE

Read Full Post »

The book will be out later in the fall and is critical against the Evangelical Right.

Its like the trend always to bash Christianity or Evangelical Christians.

What is interesting is that the author is Frank Schaeffer, son of the famous Francis Schaeffer.

Gary DeMar wrote a review of it here:


FOr more background about Frank, Gary North wrote an interesting polemical piece back in 1992 at


Read Full Post »