What do you think?
Rate this book
Patience with God: Faith for People Who Don't Like Religion
Frank Schaeffer has a problem with Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, and the rest of the New Atheists—the self-anointed “Brights.” He also has a problem with the Rick Warrens and Tim LaHayes of the world. The problem is that he doesn’t see much of a difference between the two camps. As Schaeffer puts it, they “often share the same fallacy: truth claims that reek of false certainties. I believe that there is an alternative that actually matches the way life is lived rather than how we usually talk about belief.”Sparing no one and nothing, including himself and his fiery evangelical past, and invoking subtleties too easily ignored by the pontificators, Schaeffer adds much-needed nuance to the conversation. “My writing has smoked out so many individuals who seem to be thinking about the same questions. I hope that this book will provide a meeting place for us, the scattered refugees of what I’ll call The Church of Hopeful Uncertainty.”
230 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2009
32 people are currently reading
333 people want to read
About the author
Frank Schaeffer
51 books146 followersFrank Schaeffer is a New York Times bestselling author of more than a dozen books. Frank is a survivor of both polio and an evangelical/fundamentalist childhood, an acclaimed writer who overcame severe dyslexia, a home-schooled and self-taught documentary movie director, a feature film director of four low budget Hollywood features Frank has described as “pretty terrible.” He is also an acclaimed author of both fiction and nonfiction and an artist with a loyal following of international collectors who own many of his oil paintings. Frank has been a frequent guest on the Rachel Maddow Show on NBC, has appeared on Oprah, been interviewed by Terri Gross on NPR’s Fresh Air and appeared on the Today Show, BBC News and many other media outlets. He is a much sought after speaker and has lectured at a wide range of venues from Harvard’s Kennedy School to the Hammer Museum/UCLA, Princeton University, Riverside Church Cathedral, DePaul University and the Kansas City Public Library.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 54 reviews
December 13, 2009
Frank Schaeffer seems like a kind, sensitive person, someone I'd like to be in a close friendship with. He tells us that love is the apex of our existence and that we learn best from people who model peaceful, fair behavior rather than from people who try to sell us ideology. He correctly identifies Hitchens' atheistic "God Is Not Great" and LaHaye and Jenkins' theistic "Left Behind" as obnoxious works. So it pains me to admit I was disappointed with most of this book.
First, Schaeffer repeats the main mistake of Chris Hedges in I Don't Believe in Atheists. Hedges admitted that some atheism successfully avoids fundamentalism and militancy, but then inexplicably referred simply to "atheism" throughout the book when he clearly meant the fundamentalist, militant "New Atheism". Schaeffer, too, acknowledges that the worldviews of faith and science have some commonality--both can be humble, both fall short of the ability to explain morality (pp. 43-44)--yet he repeatedly uses the phrase "atheism and fundamentalist religion," thereby correctly refusing to cede all of religion to fundamentalists, while incorrectly ceding all of atheism to a tiny group of bestselling authors. He is at least somewhat aware of other styles of atheism, allocating three sentences to a fabulous, little-known work called The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality by Andre Comte-Sponville, but even this praise is faint, as he approves only of what Comte-Sponville said about faith. (p. 13)
Schaeffer defines spirituality as self-contemplation (p. 4) but elsewhere conflates spirituality with religion (p. 7). He claims that atheists share a human need for religious ritual (p. 77) and complains that New Atheism has become a "quasi-religion" (p. 7) but elsewhere generalizes that atheists oppose comfort-based clinging to religion (p. 194). He seems unaware of atheist (humanist) services conducted, for example, by Greg Epstein at Harvard.
He tells his own narrative of sin (premarital sex on an evangelical Christian mission trip) and has trouble connecting it to his happiness today (the teenage pregnancy yielded the lovely family he enjoys so much). He falls back on the theme of the "mystery" of "grace". However, since forbidden actions and frightening accidents can have felicitous results, this was not obviously a philosophical problem in the first place, much less one to "explain" by calling it a "mystery".
He quotes Dawkins on hallucinations of God which are "especially if we happen to be young, female and Catholic the Virgin Mary" (p. 37) and misinterprets this as meant to imply that Catholic girls are silly. Rather, Dawkins was making an important observation that when people have visions of God, they see God according to their presumptions of what God looks like. Elderly male Jews do not have visions of the Virgin Mary. Properly interpreted, Dawkins meant to suggest that the most plausible explanation for divine visions is that they are hallucinations. For another example from my own reading, Robert Burton in On Being Certain notes that when a psychologist reproduced religious experiences in a laboratory, he found that "Those with a Christian upbringing often describe the presence of Jesus; those with Muslim backgrounds have described the presence of Mohammad." (Burton p. 25)
Schaeffer says Dennett's central idea in Breaking the Spell is that religion is a virus (p. 60) but this is not what I got out of Dennett's book at all. Schaeffer would have been well instructed by Dennett's more important message, about how we can "break the spell" of metaphysics and understand the material underpinnings of our consciousness without being any less amazed or appreciative. Dennett indeed could supply an answer to Schaeffer's question, "Why would the human animal have such a weird and completely novel impulse to express gratitude unless it was an echo of a greater reality, yet to be fully discovered?" (p. 64) by appealing to how our brain is wired to presume the existence of other minds. The presumption does not necessarily correspond to a reality. Dennett would agree with Schaeffer when he says "Explaining the theoretical biological origin of spirituality has no more impact on our need for, and enjoyment of, religious experiences than explaining that water is 'only H2O' strips water of its actual meaning." (p. 66) Horrifyingly, Schaeffer accuses Dennett of lacking interdisciplinary imagination, when Dennett's imagination has made him a groundbreaking scholar in his field.
Schaeffer has strange opinions on love and morality.
On love:
"When writing novels or painting small oils (of the marsh and what grows in my garden), I'm mining what's inside me, and that's a finite source limited by what I know and have experienced and what I can see and do. When I find I'm captivated by loving another person, say Lucy, the experience takes on the aura of infinity." (p. 57) Some artists would say they tap into the "infinite," too. What is really intended here is not infinity (which cannot be perceived or comprehended) but simply something beyond our own understanding that consequently feels larger than ourselves. He also writes, "Does love predate brain chemistry? Does love predate the planet I'm standing on? Does love predate the universe? I think it does. I'll take the tears [caused by my sore body:] in exchange for a chance to hold [my granddaughter:] Lucy." (pp. 197) This is hardly persuasive. Before there were human bodies, this trade-off would not have been an option. The "mystery" of why love, comfort, loyalty and wonder feel so good is not necessarily enhanced or spoiled, answered or unanswered, by identifying feelings as materially-based.
On morality:
He says "morality predates religion" because we ignore Bible verses that don't fit our morality. Morality is either "a reflection of the character of God" or "the result of practical, reality-based needs," but in any case "a lot more than an individual's invented moral vocabulary." (p. 53) (That last comment was meant as a dig at Richard Rorty, although Rorty, as a pragmatist, certainly would accept morality as the result of practical needs.) On the other hand, Schaeffer immediately adds that society suffers "when morality becomes a function of expediency". He doesn't elaborate on how we know when our moral code is based on a true "need" and when it is mere "expediency." He cites Peter Singer's argument for the right to euthanize newborn humans as an example of the hazard of a self-defined morality (p. 52) but this could be easily answered by proposing that Singer's primary problem is not that his morality is self-defined but that it is insufficiently informed by emotion. Schaeffer says that in most of our problem-solving "we combine reason with emotion," but he inexplicably immediately follows this with "logic has little to nothing to do with the way we think." (p. 46) Indeed, Schaeffer takes the fact of outrage and hurt feelings as a pointer toward how we should treat people (p. 54). No doubt that feelings play a large role in morality, but what of the rational component, the method that determines our conformity to social rules and long-term needs?
He makes this misleading statement: "Atheism has killed many more millions of people, specifically in the name of godless ideologies, than all religions combined ever killed in the name of God or any gods." (p. 7) Of course, just because an ideology has no concept of the divine does not mean that ideologues commit their crimes against religion in the name of No God. So, whereas religion has historically oppressed blasphemers and heretics, there are few examples of atheist oppression of religious expression; the only example Schaeffer provides is contemporary Communist China (p. 24) and one sentence from Sam Harris's recent book: "Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them" (p. 12), where, insofar as Harris is speaking about the proper defense against violent extremism, his opinion is not clearly distinguishable from the U.S. government's.
"Genes may push me to love," Schaeffer allows, "but why does it hurt so much to contemplate the idea that my love for my family might be a chemically induced delusion?" (p. 45) I don't know why it hurts him. Others are not as bothered by the revelation that thoughts and feelings are generated in our brains. I might suggest, though, that he cease using the word "delusion" in this context. The fact that our ability to think is materially grounded does not entail that our best thoughts are delusions. One of his recurring themes is that "[w:]ords were invented by people to describe what they perceive to be 'true'," (p. 8), so he could use a different word. Indeed, he wrote: "The reason why all these ways of thinking about the moon and the planets--scientific, aesthetic, and spiritual--are equally valid is that all words--lyrical, spiritual, or scientific--are metaphors. That's why [evangelical Christian Rick:] Warren is so wrong. That's why [New Atheist Richard:] Dawkins is so wrong. There is not one approach to purpose, let alone to truth." (p. 126) "Delusion," it follows, is a metaphor. He should pick a metaphor that seems more accurate and suits him better!
On the other hand, Schaeffer expresses distrust for relativist/ironist Richard Rorty who made a similar point about how the flexibility of words reflect the multiplicity of truth.
"[Richard:] Rorty argued that we make up morality. He believed that bright people are 'ironists' who understand that we know nothing except our own 'vocabularies.' He said that morality is merely 'the language games of one's time.' * * * Rorty was honest enough to admit that he had problems with selling his idea of an individually invented moral vocabulary, because no society raises children 'to make them continually dubious,' as he said. So he wrote that 'ironists' like himself should keep their views secret or at least separate their 'public and private vocabularies.' In other words, Rorty admitted that his ideas had to be lied about in order to succeed, because the way people actually are does not correspond to his stark atheist philosophy." (pp. 50-51)
Didn't Schaeffer say (as I quoted above from p. 126) that there were multiple approaches to truth and purpose? Didn't he say elsewhere (p. 19, for example) that we can have multiple selves as we grow? Rorty's advice seems coherent and matches our experience: we say different things in public and private, to adults and to children. Schaeffer also seems to take a pragmatic lie-to-succeed approach when he says people are more likely to be selfless and hard-working if they believe in God's will and God's purpose for them. (pp. 54-55) That's not an argument for God's existence; it's an argument for lying about it.
Schaeffer suggests that belief in "a larger reality" might be something we discover rather than invent, and that, although it is outside ourselves, we of course perceive it through our own lens. (p. 63) Concluding the book, he says he is pulled out of his occasional bouts of atheism when he senses a presence. (p. 219) Surely we did not have to read through this entire book to hear this argument for God's existence?
First, Schaeffer repeats the main mistake of Chris Hedges in I Don't Believe in Atheists. Hedges admitted that some atheism successfully avoids fundamentalism and militancy, but then inexplicably referred simply to "atheism" throughout the book when he clearly meant the fundamentalist, militant "New Atheism". Schaeffer, too, acknowledges that the worldviews of faith and science have some commonality--both can be humble, both fall short of the ability to explain morality (pp. 43-44)--yet he repeatedly uses the phrase "atheism and fundamentalist religion," thereby correctly refusing to cede all of religion to fundamentalists, while incorrectly ceding all of atheism to a tiny group of bestselling authors. He is at least somewhat aware of other styles of atheism, allocating three sentences to a fabulous, little-known work called The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality by Andre Comte-Sponville, but even this praise is faint, as he approves only of what Comte-Sponville said about faith. (p. 13)
Schaeffer defines spirituality as self-contemplation (p. 4) but elsewhere conflates spirituality with religion (p. 7). He claims that atheists share a human need for religious ritual (p. 77) and complains that New Atheism has become a "quasi-religion" (p. 7) but elsewhere generalizes that atheists oppose comfort-based clinging to religion (p. 194). He seems unaware of atheist (humanist) services conducted, for example, by Greg Epstein at Harvard.
He tells his own narrative of sin (premarital sex on an evangelical Christian mission trip) and has trouble connecting it to his happiness today (the teenage pregnancy yielded the lovely family he enjoys so much). He falls back on the theme of the "mystery" of "grace". However, since forbidden actions and frightening accidents can have felicitous results, this was not obviously a philosophical problem in the first place, much less one to "explain" by calling it a "mystery".
He quotes Dawkins on hallucinations of God which are "especially if we happen to be young, female and Catholic the Virgin Mary" (p. 37) and misinterprets this as meant to imply that Catholic girls are silly. Rather, Dawkins was making an important observation that when people have visions of God, they see God according to their presumptions of what God looks like. Elderly male Jews do not have visions of the Virgin Mary. Properly interpreted, Dawkins meant to suggest that the most plausible explanation for divine visions is that they are hallucinations. For another example from my own reading, Robert Burton in On Being Certain notes that when a psychologist reproduced religious experiences in a laboratory, he found that "Those with a Christian upbringing often describe the presence of Jesus; those with Muslim backgrounds have described the presence of Mohammad." (Burton p. 25)
Schaeffer says Dennett's central idea in Breaking the Spell is that religion is a virus (p. 60) but this is not what I got out of Dennett's book at all. Schaeffer would have been well instructed by Dennett's more important message, about how we can "break the spell" of metaphysics and understand the material underpinnings of our consciousness without being any less amazed or appreciative. Dennett indeed could supply an answer to Schaeffer's question, "Why would the human animal have such a weird and completely novel impulse to express gratitude unless it was an echo of a greater reality, yet to be fully discovered?" (p. 64) by appealing to how our brain is wired to presume the existence of other minds. The presumption does not necessarily correspond to a reality. Dennett would agree with Schaeffer when he says "Explaining the theoretical biological origin of spirituality has no more impact on our need for, and enjoyment of, religious experiences than explaining that water is 'only H2O' strips water of its actual meaning." (p. 66) Horrifyingly, Schaeffer accuses Dennett of lacking interdisciplinary imagination, when Dennett's imagination has made him a groundbreaking scholar in his field.
Schaeffer has strange opinions on love and morality.
On love:
"When writing novels or painting small oils (of the marsh and what grows in my garden), I'm mining what's inside me, and that's a finite source limited by what I know and have experienced and what I can see and do. When I find I'm captivated by loving another person, say Lucy, the experience takes on the aura of infinity." (p. 57) Some artists would say they tap into the "infinite," too. What is really intended here is not infinity (which cannot be perceived or comprehended) but simply something beyond our own understanding that consequently feels larger than ourselves. He also writes, "Does love predate brain chemistry? Does love predate the planet I'm standing on? Does love predate the universe? I think it does. I'll take the tears [caused by my sore body:] in exchange for a chance to hold [my granddaughter:] Lucy." (pp. 197) This is hardly persuasive. Before there were human bodies, this trade-off would not have been an option. The "mystery" of why love, comfort, loyalty and wonder feel so good is not necessarily enhanced or spoiled, answered or unanswered, by identifying feelings as materially-based.
On morality:
He says "morality predates religion" because we ignore Bible verses that don't fit our morality. Morality is either "a reflection of the character of God" or "the result of practical, reality-based needs," but in any case "a lot more than an individual's invented moral vocabulary." (p. 53) (That last comment was meant as a dig at Richard Rorty, although Rorty, as a pragmatist, certainly would accept morality as the result of practical needs.) On the other hand, Schaeffer immediately adds that society suffers "when morality becomes a function of expediency". He doesn't elaborate on how we know when our moral code is based on a true "need" and when it is mere "expediency." He cites Peter Singer's argument for the right to euthanize newborn humans as an example of the hazard of a self-defined morality (p. 52) but this could be easily answered by proposing that Singer's primary problem is not that his morality is self-defined but that it is insufficiently informed by emotion. Schaeffer says that in most of our problem-solving "we combine reason with emotion," but he inexplicably immediately follows this with "logic has little to nothing to do with the way we think." (p. 46) Indeed, Schaeffer takes the fact of outrage and hurt feelings as a pointer toward how we should treat people (p. 54). No doubt that feelings play a large role in morality, but what of the rational component, the method that determines our conformity to social rules and long-term needs?
He makes this misleading statement: "Atheism has killed many more millions of people, specifically in the name of godless ideologies, than all religions combined ever killed in the name of God or any gods." (p. 7) Of course, just because an ideology has no concept of the divine does not mean that ideologues commit their crimes against religion in the name of No God. So, whereas religion has historically oppressed blasphemers and heretics, there are few examples of atheist oppression of religious expression; the only example Schaeffer provides is contemporary Communist China (p. 24) and one sentence from Sam Harris's recent book: "Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them" (p. 12), where, insofar as Harris is speaking about the proper defense against violent extremism, his opinion is not clearly distinguishable from the U.S. government's.
"Genes may push me to love," Schaeffer allows, "but why does it hurt so much to contemplate the idea that my love for my family might be a chemically induced delusion?" (p. 45) I don't know why it hurts him. Others are not as bothered by the revelation that thoughts and feelings are generated in our brains. I might suggest, though, that he cease using the word "delusion" in this context. The fact that our ability to think is materially grounded does not entail that our best thoughts are delusions. One of his recurring themes is that "[w:]ords were invented by people to describe what they perceive to be 'true'," (p. 8), so he could use a different word. Indeed, he wrote: "The reason why all these ways of thinking about the moon and the planets--scientific, aesthetic, and spiritual--are equally valid is that all words--lyrical, spiritual, or scientific--are metaphors. That's why [evangelical Christian Rick:] Warren is so wrong. That's why [New Atheist Richard:] Dawkins is so wrong. There is not one approach to purpose, let alone to truth." (p. 126) "Delusion," it follows, is a metaphor. He should pick a metaphor that seems more accurate and suits him better!
On the other hand, Schaeffer expresses distrust for relativist/ironist Richard Rorty who made a similar point about how the flexibility of words reflect the multiplicity of truth.
"[Richard:] Rorty argued that we make up morality. He believed that bright people are 'ironists' who understand that we know nothing except our own 'vocabularies.' He said that morality is merely 'the language games of one's time.' * * * Rorty was honest enough to admit that he had problems with selling his idea of an individually invented moral vocabulary, because no society raises children 'to make them continually dubious,' as he said. So he wrote that 'ironists' like himself should keep their views secret or at least separate their 'public and private vocabularies.' In other words, Rorty admitted that his ideas had to be lied about in order to succeed, because the way people actually are does not correspond to his stark atheist philosophy." (pp. 50-51)
Didn't Schaeffer say (as I quoted above from p. 126) that there were multiple approaches to truth and purpose? Didn't he say elsewhere (p. 19, for example) that we can have multiple selves as we grow? Rorty's advice seems coherent and matches our experience: we say different things in public and private, to adults and to children. Schaeffer also seems to take a pragmatic lie-to-succeed approach when he says people are more likely to be selfless and hard-working if they believe in God's will and God's purpose for them. (pp. 54-55) That's not an argument for God's existence; it's an argument for lying about it.
Schaeffer suggests that belief in "a larger reality" might be something we discover rather than invent, and that, although it is outside ourselves, we of course perceive it through our own lens. (p. 63) Concluding the book, he says he is pulled out of his occasional bouts of atheism when he senses a presence. (p. 219) Surely we did not have to read through this entire book to hear this argument for God's existence?
June 18, 2013
This is my third book by Frank Schaeffer (son of Francis Schaeffer) in 2 months. I am so thankful for his perspective.
Crazy for God was probably the best all around, Sex Mom and God, was less well written in my opinion and this one was great for trying to figure out what is realistic about faith in God.
In this book he begins by telling the reader about how he can't handle Atheism. He goes through authors like Christopher Hitchens (who he doesn't like) and Daniel Dennett (who he does like). He is frustrated with most of them because he believes there is more to humanity than random chance and chemicals. He also thinks they have chosen their side and are vehemently fighting for it, ignoring all doubt and screaming louder when applicable.
Second, he talks about how he can't handle his previous evangelicalism/religious right. This part hit close to home, and I'm thankful for it. He is frustrated with most of them because he believes they are blinded by the culture they are in. He says they have chosen their side and are vehemently fighting for it, ignoring all doubt and screaming louder when applicable.
In the third and final part of the book, he outlines what he believes, tells a few stories from his own life. This part is great. He is Greek Orthodox now, enjoying their liturgy and the peaceful way they acknowledge the mystery that is God. He is not always sure there is a God, or at least that God is the person Christians have explained him to be.
There is a lot of controversy in this book, but I would highly recommend it to the right person. As he does in all his books, some of his rants I believe are a little over the top, but if you take the book as a whole, I think he presents a balanced picture. I also wish he would have spent a little more time in Biblical studies rather than philosophy/theology. Some of the things he says about the Bible are a little under-informed.
This book was almost a 5 star for me, I think maybe it was just slightly redundant (after reading his other two) so I took it down to 4 instead of 5. That may change as I continue to process what I read.
Crazy for God was probably the best all around, Sex Mom and God, was less well written in my opinion and this one was great for trying to figure out what is realistic about faith in God.
In this book he begins by telling the reader about how he can't handle Atheism. He goes through authors like Christopher Hitchens (who he doesn't like) and Daniel Dennett (who he does like). He is frustrated with most of them because he believes there is more to humanity than random chance and chemicals. He also thinks they have chosen their side and are vehemently fighting for it, ignoring all doubt and screaming louder when applicable.
Second, he talks about how he can't handle his previous evangelicalism/religious right. This part hit close to home, and I'm thankful for it. He is frustrated with most of them because he believes they are blinded by the culture they are in. He says they have chosen their side and are vehemently fighting for it, ignoring all doubt and screaming louder when applicable.
In the third and final part of the book, he outlines what he believes, tells a few stories from his own life. This part is great. He is Greek Orthodox now, enjoying their liturgy and the peaceful way they acknowledge the mystery that is God. He is not always sure there is a God, or at least that God is the person Christians have explained him to be.
There is a lot of controversy in this book, but I would highly recommend it to the right person. As he does in all his books, some of his rants I believe are a little over the top, but if you take the book as a whole, I think he presents a balanced picture. I also wish he would have spent a little more time in Biblical studies rather than philosophy/theology. Some of the things he says about the Bible are a little under-informed.
This book was almost a 5 star for me, I think maybe it was just slightly redundant (after reading his other two) so I took it down to 4 instead of 5. That may change as I continue to process what I read.
December 16, 2009
I couldn't bear it. Terrible as far as I got, three chapters in. See my full critique and struggle: http://www.examiner.com/x-4275-Secula...
June 4, 2014
"The divine catalyst of love makes trying to follow "the Lord, the Creator of life" - as God is called in the Nicene Creed - a worthwhile if quixotic quest. I am privileged to stand up in my chosen community of faith and say that creed, even with complete incomprehension. I thus identify with others on my little part of the path to God who (like me) are struggling to find words to express the paradoxical longing we all have to connect with something greater than ourselves.
Some days I know that life has no ultimate meaning. Other days I know that every breath I take has eternal meaning. I also know that I'm crazy to believe these two opposites simultaneously. I'd feel even crazier denying them. I believe that both statements are true. Like that particle in a physics experiment, I am in two places at once.
So I continue to "look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the age to come," as the Creed beautifully describes the ultimate human quest. Since I believe that God's revelation is the gift of love, the gift of eternal life seems possible too. Because if I had the power to do so, that's exactly what I'd give to my darling Lucy."
I enjoyed reading this book, especially Part II where Schaeffer weaves many personal stories into his philosophy of life. He is a very gifted writer and was very open and honest as he draws the reader into his world.
Part I - "Where Extremes Meet" dealt with the extremes in both atheism and evangelicalism. It was O.K. but if you are pressed for time skip this section and jump right to Part II,
Some days I know that life has no ultimate meaning. Other days I know that every breath I take has eternal meaning. I also know that I'm crazy to believe these two opposites simultaneously. I'd feel even crazier denying them. I believe that both statements are true. Like that particle in a physics experiment, I am in two places at once.
So I continue to "look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the age to come," as the Creed beautifully describes the ultimate human quest. Since I believe that God's revelation is the gift of love, the gift of eternal life seems possible too. Because if I had the power to do so, that's exactly what I'd give to my darling Lucy."
I enjoyed reading this book, especially Part II where Schaeffer weaves many personal stories into his philosophy of life. He is a very gifted writer and was very open and honest as he draws the reader into his world.
Part I - "Where Extremes Meet" dealt with the extremes in both atheism and evangelicalism. It was O.K. but if you are pressed for time skip this section and jump right to Part II,
January 17, 2010
Kudos to Schaeffer for the ground he has covered since the time of his evangelical/fundamentalist childhood. He has traveled and in his traveling he has imagined! Thank god? Perhaps. The jury is still out. Schaeffer does a wonderful job of confronting the fundamental crazies, both atheistic and religious, for their insistence that they "know." He embraces the mystery of life and encourages the scientific, searching mind. However, his imagination fails when he is unable to conceive of a god in anything other than a masculine form. We're still in the business of building gods that suit us, I suppose. And so on that count, Schaeffer is mired in history. Patience with God should be a good read for anyone seeking to step out of their various fundamentalisms, but it's certainly not cutting edge thinking. It's sort of a precursor to thinking, I would say.
July 3, 2013
I thought I would really enjoy this based on the description and topics covered but this book is mostly a list of authors and other people (including his parents) that the author has complaints about. He tries to provide some background for the reason he feels the way he does by telling us about his childhood. The description of his childhood makes it so much harder to relate to him because if makes the book read like it's written by a whiny spoiled rich kid. I have a lot of respect for Frank and have appreciated hearing him in interviews or as a guest on various podcasts but I don't think I could read another of his books.
May 9, 2017
I struggled with this book from the opening chapter. The discussions of 'New' atheism (which appeared to be the main target of the author) were pretty incoherent. The author appears to be extremely knowledgeable, but didn't compose a book with an argument that could be followed.
February 20, 2023
Last weekend I drove from San Diego to Tucson and back to visit my daughter Darcy and grandson Nick, and to meet Nick's new wife and her family. On the way, I listened to Patience With God: Faith for People Who Don't Like Religion (or Atheism, written and read by Frank Schaeffer, son of Francis Schaeffer in whom I have taken some interest because he was the patriarch of a famous sort of commune called L'abri, in Switzerland and I, an old hippie, retain a fondness for the idea of communal living.
Frank grew up at L'abri -- which he seems remember as a sort of alien place where his parents spent far more time and effort evangelizing than raising or teaching him -- and at a boarding school he truly began to learn and grow. As a young man, he followed his father into the business of religion and, as what he calls an evangelical fundamentalist , spent lots of years as a speaker and writer in that realm. If he experienced a particular revelation or episode that prompted him to break free, I must have missed the mention of it. I frequently find myself lost in space, most frequently in the desert.
By the time he wrote and published this book, a dozen and some years ago, he had shifted and become a fiery critic of every sort of fundamentalism including Christian evangelical brand with whom he had so long identified.
The defining purpose of these Christian evangelicals is to enlist followers by promising that to accept Christ as their savior, commonly at a church altar or in front of a crowd at a crusade, will guarantee eternal life. As far as I could tell, Mister Schaeffer has no complaint against this motive except an opinion that its message is probably oversimplified.
He mostly reserves his complaints for fundamentalists, meaning those who profess to have all the answers and who don't accept any disagreement. They can be atheists, Jews, Moslems, Christians, Zoroastrians, Communists, scientists, or whatever.
Mr. Schaeffer lobbies against all fundamentalism because he believes, as do I, that none of us humans have all the answers. He would argue that our knowledge is limited by the natural constraints of sense perceptions and the finite boundaries of our intelligence. So, he would have us reject any form of fundamentalism as not only misguided but also potentially dangerous, since it promotes the us vs. them mentality that permits leader to turn followers into fanatics capable of even murder or genocide.
Most of us would agree we should be on guard against of fundamentalists who represent faiths or philosophies other than our own. But what stance should those who take the Christ story seriously take toward those who maintain the Bible is the actual dictated word of God, that everything in it should be taken literally, and that people who believe any differently are doomed to eternal punishment?
Mr. Schaeffer would have us walk away. In fact, he holds this suggestion out to the host of Christian leaders who are aware that fundamentalism is wrong and dangerous but feel stuck in their jobs lest they lose their livelihood.
But walking away is for those with more courage than many good people possess.
And, Simon Peter asked, "Lord, then where would we go?"
Good question, to which I would do a disservice by giving a brief answer. In Patience With God, Mr. Schaeffer, a fine, passionate, and compelling writer, doesn't exactly answer the question, only points us in a general direction.
A clue to his attitude toward pretty much everything is that each of the book's chapter is prefaced by a quote from Soren Kierkegaard, who argued that an institutional church is a contradiction to what Christ stood for. Christ was an outsider, and so should all true Christians be. So, if we attend a church, we should not commit to its dogma or common opinions.
At times,Schaffer's passion rises into a kind of anger. Anyone who considers a church their home can feel personally threatened. Professional Christians may well feel attacked, perhaps legitimately and perhaps unfairly. It's not an easy book. The spiritually comfortable should beware, as should those who want all the answers. But readers on the lookout for stuff to think over should put it on the top of their stack.
Frank grew up at L'abri -- which he seems remember as a sort of alien place where his parents spent far more time and effort evangelizing than raising or teaching him -- and at a boarding school he truly began to learn and grow. As a young man, he followed his father into the business of religion and, as what he calls an evangelical fundamentalist , spent lots of years as a speaker and writer in that realm. If he experienced a particular revelation or episode that prompted him to break free, I must have missed the mention of it. I frequently find myself lost in space, most frequently in the desert.
By the time he wrote and published this book, a dozen and some years ago, he had shifted and become a fiery critic of every sort of fundamentalism including Christian evangelical brand with whom he had so long identified.
The defining purpose of these Christian evangelicals is to enlist followers by promising that to accept Christ as their savior, commonly at a church altar or in front of a crowd at a crusade, will guarantee eternal life. As far as I could tell, Mister Schaeffer has no complaint against this motive except an opinion that its message is probably oversimplified.
He mostly reserves his complaints for fundamentalists, meaning those who profess to have all the answers and who don't accept any disagreement. They can be atheists, Jews, Moslems, Christians, Zoroastrians, Communists, scientists, or whatever.
Mr. Schaeffer lobbies against all fundamentalism because he believes, as do I, that none of us humans have all the answers. He would argue that our knowledge is limited by the natural constraints of sense perceptions and the finite boundaries of our intelligence. So, he would have us reject any form of fundamentalism as not only misguided but also potentially dangerous, since it promotes the us vs. them mentality that permits leader to turn followers into fanatics capable of even murder or genocide.
Most of us would agree we should be on guard against of fundamentalists who represent faiths or philosophies other than our own. But what stance should those who take the Christ story seriously take toward those who maintain the Bible is the actual dictated word of God, that everything in it should be taken literally, and that people who believe any differently are doomed to eternal punishment?
Mr. Schaeffer would have us walk away. In fact, he holds this suggestion out to the host of Christian leaders who are aware that fundamentalism is wrong and dangerous but feel stuck in their jobs lest they lose their livelihood.
But walking away is for those with more courage than many good people possess.
And, Simon Peter asked, "Lord, then where would we go?"
Good question, to which I would do a disservice by giving a brief answer. In Patience With God, Mr. Schaeffer, a fine, passionate, and compelling writer, doesn't exactly answer the question, only points us in a general direction.
A clue to his attitude toward pretty much everything is that each of the book's chapter is prefaced by a quote from Soren Kierkegaard, who argued that an institutional church is a contradiction to what Christ stood for. Christ was an outsider, and so should all true Christians be. So, if we attend a church, we should not commit to its dogma or common opinions.
At times,Schaffer's passion rises into a kind of anger. Anyone who considers a church their home can feel personally threatened. Professional Christians may well feel attacked, perhaps legitimately and perhaps unfairly. It's not an easy book. The spiritually comfortable should beware, as should those who want all the answers. But readers on the lookout for stuff to think over should put it on the top of their stack.
March 3, 2019
I only know Frank Schaeffer because I follow him on twitter and cringe about his politically correct tweets that do not exactly fall in the favor of my political views. That aside, I was intrigued by what he was writing about being the son of another writer that I've been acquainted with by reading and that made a dent into my thinking, namely Francis Shaeffer.
Franks book is an attempt to point out the middle road between the new atheist movement and their counterpoint in the religious fundamentalist movement. I can still detect those same things that I'm not very fond of from his tweets, but I'm in agreement with his sentiment. There is much off with both the religious extremists and the atheist fundamentalists so to speak, and it's good to grapple with both because we will encounter them.
The second part moves into memoir style, which is not my favorite genre but it gives a practical light upon the road he himself has taken in the midst of the emergence of the two previous kinds of thoughts.
The style of writing is not too bad, I mean, I liked how easily it flowed but it was also sometimes too assuming and written to an audience that is in specific progress, a progress wherein I would put myself with one of my feet because it happens to touch upon a lot of past experience and this kind of personal. I would say that in the end, it came across as a very ok book - in times brilliant, in other times just adequate.
Franks book is an attempt to point out the middle road between the new atheist movement and their counterpoint in the religious fundamentalist movement. I can still detect those same things that I'm not very fond of from his tweets, but I'm in agreement with his sentiment. There is much off with both the religious extremists and the atheist fundamentalists so to speak, and it's good to grapple with both because we will encounter them.
The second part moves into memoir style, which is not my favorite genre but it gives a practical light upon the road he himself has taken in the midst of the emergence of the two previous kinds of thoughts.
The style of writing is not too bad, I mean, I liked how easily it flowed but it was also sometimes too assuming and written to an audience that is in specific progress, a progress wherein I would put myself with one of my feet because it happens to touch upon a lot of past experience and this kind of personal. I would say that in the end, it came across as a very ok book - in times brilliant, in other times just adequate.
September 13, 2019
I really enjoyed some parts of this book and other parts I felt were less interesting. Like the author I feel there are two extremes with the religious fundamentalist on one side and the “New Atheist” on the other. Both share a common element that I think is ridiculous: they think they KNOW something that I am more and more convinced that we can’t KNOW. I relate to this author on a personal level as I have also struggled to make sense of my own fundamentalist views. The self-disclosed I see in each of this books is quite refreshing and at times quite shocking. I can always appreciate an author who has realized he doesn’t have all the answers and is just simply trying to make sense out of life and its purpose.
April 2, 2020
On this book cover, GOD is blurred for a reason. Schaefer states that some days he’s an atheist while other days he’s a believer in god, or, whatever he defines as god. A better title might have been, ‘An Attempt to Define God” or “Trying to Understand God” or “Criticizing Everyone” 😅. He is very critical of any viewpoint that lands on the certainty side of a belief or unbelief in god. He is more comfortable embracing the quandary of the paradox, The Church of Hopeful Uncertainty, as he calls it. I’d say this book is an okay read to gain the perspective of a person that has thought deeply about religion and god and has basically landed in the agnostic camp.
As Modest Mouse put it:
“Of course we just do not know
What in the hell are we here for
We just do not know”
As Modest Mouse put it:
“Of course we just do not know
What in the hell are we here for
We just do not know”
August 9, 2018
Presenting what he asserts to be a challenge to both atheists and fundamentalists, the author intertwines his personal philosophy of life with a smorgasbord of stories, putting forth what, in his opinion, might be realistic about a person’s faith in God.
The evangelical/fundamentalist/political-ranting infused throughout the narrative comes off as more of a diatribe than objective commentary and the undertone of anger permeating the text tends to dilute insights that may deserve greater contemplation.
Nevertheless, in the end, it’s difficult to argue with the author’s conclusion that the way people live . . . à la the Golden Rule . . . is what speaks to the best of humanity.
The evangelical/fundamentalist/political-ranting infused throughout the narrative comes off as more of a diatribe than objective commentary and the undertone of anger permeating the text tends to dilute insights that may deserve greater contemplation.
Nevertheless, in the end, it’s difficult to argue with the author’s conclusion that the way people live . . . à la the Golden Rule . . . is what speaks to the best of humanity.
May 6, 2022
Sadly DNF. I thoroughly enjoyed Crazy for God by Frank and thought this book would follow a similar vein. In the end it is pretty much a one by one response to the New Atheists positions and arguments. I have read Dawkins, Harris, Dennet, and Hitchens, so I know the works Frank is responding to. He does an okay job, and I'm even sympathetic with his position, but it all feels a bit dated. A bit too 2008 to be reading in the brave new world of 2022. Perhaps if I had read it closer to its publication date I would have found it more relevant. I think Stories We Tell Ourselves by Richard Holloway scratches the itch I was looking for in PwG.
May 4, 2020
Interesting book, and enjoyable read but I see no compelling arguments against atheism other than it's depressing to know the universe doesn't care about you. Too bad, but you wanting something to love you doesn't that doesn't change whether it does or not. His book is full of a lot of antidotes, but again, I liked reading it. Just because Dawkins is a mean t-shirt salesmen doesn't invalidate his arguments. Just because Hitchens was probably a bumbling drunk doesn't mean that his prose is any less moving.
February 25, 2025
2⭐. By and large, not a good book. Picked it up on a whim at the library and was disappointed. Many of the arguments presented by Schaeffer are poorly constructed and poorly edited (surprised at how much free thought writing made it into this book).
The best parts were the non-factual, poetic bits of writing. Some of his thoughts regarding family and love were genuinely beautiful but were then repeated again and again with the words in a slightly different order. Don't need to read more of his stuff.
The best parts were the non-factual, poetic bits of writing. Some of his thoughts regarding family and love were genuinely beautiful but were then repeated again and again with the words in a slightly different order. Don't need to read more of his stuff.
April 24, 2022
It’s funny, I still don’t think I really like this author as a person all that much, but his writing is kind of addictive. I don’t agree with him on much, and yet I do… He really makes me think and that’s what keeps me coming back to him. As a mom who loves Jesus, but sees the harm that legalism and capitalistic, political, nationalist Christianity causes, I find it crucial to listen to the stories of those raised in the faith who have left it. Listen to understand and do better.
December 23, 2018
This is one of the few books discussing personal spirituality and organized religion which I would broadly recommend to people--regardless of their current beliefs. I don't agree with everything the author says, but I think he has a valuable perspective.
I do agree with this (at least as a naive hope and aspiration): "the future belongs to the peacemakers."
I do agree with this (at least as a naive hope and aspiration): "the future belongs to the peacemakers."
August 14, 2019
A must read
A must read for anyone who struggles living a life of faith with such a strange book as the Bible. Having moved from the Bible being authoritative and inerrant to it being a strange but wonderful wisdom book I so enjoyed the author’s candidness of his spiritual journey as it related to the Bible and life in evangelical/fundamentalism.
A must read for anyone who struggles living a life of faith with such a strange book as the Bible. Having moved from the Bible being authoritative and inerrant to it being a strange but wonderful wisdom book I so enjoyed the author’s candidness of his spiritual journey as it related to the Bible and life in evangelical/fundamentalism.
September 4, 2019
The author was recommended to me by a friend. I discussed it a bit with my reading friends. The book reminded me of my life experiences with religion. In a way it was a comfortable read for me. Good Reads is asking an amusing question: Spoilers? With a button. No. No spoilers.
For my own purposes it is a five star. I very much appreciated this book.
For my own purposes it is a five star. I very much appreciated this book.
November 16, 2025
I don't know what "god" the author is referring to, but it is not the GOD of the Bible. His "god" appears to be his own personal experiences. He prefers to quote Kierkegaard, a Danish nut case, rather than scripture, to support his twisted take on the truth. I kept thinking of the apostle James--"A double minded man is unstable in all his ways."
April 23, 2022
A bit meandering, this book details more about what Schaeffer does (or at least did) believe than in Crazy for God. He complains equally about the religious far right and the more stringent atheists and tries to sit in the middle upholding the power of love and paradox and familial sacrifice.
July 27, 2017
Great book! I enjoyed his honesty. There is an element of absurdity in every religion (including atheism) -- sometimes, it is a huge element!
July 24, 2022
Speciaal geschikt voor MK's.
October 1, 2024
"Schaeffer adds much-needed nuance to the conversation."
Yes!
Yes!
December 17, 2015
Favorite Quotes:
"The wisdom and mercy of our headmaster was what I followed, not a theory. He did not try to convert me to a better way. He was the better way. His teaching me didn’t depend on my believing what he believed. It depended on his setting an example for me to follow—an example that cost him a night’s sleep. Mr. Parke spoke no grand words. He traveled with two scared little boys a few steps down a path to greater kindness, to empathy, to learning to walk in another’s shoes. That is the purpose driven life."
"In other words, authentic spiritual apophatic experience is the exact opposite of intellectually organized theology, and of “fact” and “history.” And biblical “revelation”—just as is mother love—isn’t about books on the subject but is expressed in those moments of tenderness that transcend description and are seen with inner eyes. (That is one reason that many of the Fathers of the early monastic tradition put forth the idea that true theology is prayer, rather than intellectual ideas.)"
“With fear of God, faith and love draw near,” indicates that salvation is a journey dependent not on “right thinking” but on love, which is what the fear of the God, who cannot be described, is."
"...we are liturgy."
"The God of love is in that rolling thunder pouring from a Hammond B-3 electric organ, providing the heart-stopping link that holds together so much luminous black gospel music. The God of love is in the perfume of clouds of incense at the Orthodox midnight Easter service as we shout “Christ is risen!” The God of love is in those first imperishable notes on Miles Davis’s album Kind of Blue. The God of love is in the tender way Lucy lays her cheek on mine and we cling to each other for dear life as this speck of a spaceship we call Earth hurtles into the vast unknown."
"But those studies probe the how, not the why, of the deep satisfaction we have when experiencing emotional empathy in nonverbal or even preverbal communication with a composer through his or her music. The scientists tell us how brains work, but not what we are when we become one with Mahalia Jackson as she lifts up her gorgeous voice and sings “Every Time I Feel the Spirit.”
"Paradoxes should not be resolved but celebrated."
"Grace, mystery, love, and (above all) embracing paradox are what count. And that paradox, that truth button, that grace, should humble everyone who thinks she or he has correct ideas about the way things should be, must be, ought to be, have to be—either “according to the latest scientific studies” or according to “what the Bible says.” With all due respect to Dawkins, mystery trumps everything. With all due respect to the theologians, every true story begins with the words “In spite of what I thought at the time. . . . ”
"There is no good, let alone final answer about suffering and loss. This is a question of embracing the paradox. What I care about is that my life not be stripped of meaning and beauty in the here and now by overeager busybodies bent on converting me to their atheist cult or by religious zealots who soft-peddle lies about a God who solves everything. He doesn’t."
"There must be a better way than navigating between an indifferent universe and a Disney “god” of canned, happy evangelical endings or the angry hate-filled god whom my aunt followed and who “told” her to trash her family in favor of a simplistic purity that no one can or should ever attain. Rigid purity is the ultimate denial of paradox. And that denial is the only blasphemy there is. It’s the blasphemy committed against God by all fundamentalists with every false certainty they mouth about Him."
"The wisdom and mercy of our headmaster was what I followed, not a theory. He did not try to convert me to a better way. He was the better way. His teaching me didn’t depend on my believing what he believed. It depended on his setting an example for me to follow—an example that cost him a night’s sleep. Mr. Parke spoke no grand words. He traveled with two scared little boys a few steps down a path to greater kindness, to empathy, to learning to walk in another’s shoes. That is the purpose driven life."
"In other words, authentic spiritual apophatic experience is the exact opposite of intellectually organized theology, and of “fact” and “history.” And biblical “revelation”—just as is mother love—isn’t about books on the subject but is expressed in those moments of tenderness that transcend description and are seen with inner eyes. (That is one reason that many of the Fathers of the early monastic tradition put forth the idea that true theology is prayer, rather than intellectual ideas.)"
“With fear of God, faith and love draw near,” indicates that salvation is a journey dependent not on “right thinking” but on love, which is what the fear of the God, who cannot be described, is."
"...we are liturgy."
"The God of love is in that rolling thunder pouring from a Hammond B-3 electric organ, providing the heart-stopping link that holds together so much luminous black gospel music. The God of love is in the perfume of clouds of incense at the Orthodox midnight Easter service as we shout “Christ is risen!” The God of love is in those first imperishable notes on Miles Davis’s album Kind of Blue. The God of love is in the tender way Lucy lays her cheek on mine and we cling to each other for dear life as this speck of a spaceship we call Earth hurtles into the vast unknown."
"But those studies probe the how, not the why, of the deep satisfaction we have when experiencing emotional empathy in nonverbal or even preverbal communication with a composer through his or her music. The scientists tell us how brains work, but not what we are when we become one with Mahalia Jackson as she lifts up her gorgeous voice and sings “Every Time I Feel the Spirit.”
"Paradoxes should not be resolved but celebrated."
"Grace, mystery, love, and (above all) embracing paradox are what count. And that paradox, that truth button, that grace, should humble everyone who thinks she or he has correct ideas about the way things should be, must be, ought to be, have to be—either “according to the latest scientific studies” or according to “what the Bible says.” With all due respect to Dawkins, mystery trumps everything. With all due respect to the theologians, every true story begins with the words “In spite of what I thought at the time. . . . ”
"There is no good, let alone final answer about suffering and loss. This is a question of embracing the paradox. What I care about is that my life not be stripped of meaning and beauty in the here and now by overeager busybodies bent on converting me to their atheist cult or by religious zealots who soft-peddle lies about a God who solves everything. He doesn’t."
"There must be a better way than navigating between an indifferent universe and a Disney “god” of canned, happy evangelical endings or the angry hate-filled god whom my aunt followed and who “told” her to trash her family in favor of a simplistic purity that no one can or should ever attain. Rigid purity is the ultimate denial of paradox. And that denial is the only blasphemy there is. It’s the blasphemy committed against God by all fundamentalists with every false certainty they mouth about Him."
June 23, 2019
I picked up this book because I could sympathize with Mr. Schaefer’s complaint that the extreme positions in the God debate leave many in the middle isolated and frustrated with both groups. The new atheists give us no hope, no reason for future hope and they leave more questions than answers. They can be shrill and disrespectful. The other extreme can be just as unpalatable. So what are reasonable people to do? Can we know truth, can we ascertain the nature of an invisible God? Are we beholden to just these two opposite views of certainty? Is there room for doubt on either side?
Mr. Schaefer is very articulate, clearly educated and museful. He rightly condemns many of the new atheists (Richard Dawkins, et al.) as obnoxious, agenda-ed voices who misrepresent reality for their own gain. He makes a rather similar critique of the evangelical side, his parents (famous televangelists of whom I’ve never heard) included. Particularly, he condemns all evangelical believers as being singularly monetarily motivated. Mr. Schaefer rejects both groups out of hand (or at least his perception of each group).
In the place of these two groups, he crafts a religion of his own making, one with which he can be comfortable. As the book went on, it became increasingly clear to me that Mr. Schaefer is less concerned with the true nature of God and His existence than he is with his own comfort and contentment. Like Richard Dawkins, he begins piece by piece to dismantle the God of the Bible and to create Him into a god of his own image. He doesn’t buy any of the sin, wrath and condemnation parts in the Old Testament, so they are excluded, but he likes Jesus message of compassion so he adds in a heavy dose of love from the life of Jesus. A dash of grace for looking past humanity’s minor missteps and pinch of eternal consciousness from the Budhists and viola, he’s got a god he’s happy with and settles into a church that agrees with and preaches his god.
In the Gospel accounts, Jesus tells a couple parables about putting new wine in old wine skins and putting a new patch on old worn out material. These were curious stories, so I looked them up. Jesus is referring to how He was believed and perceived by different people in His day, and subsequently our day. Jesus said that He was, “the way, the truth and the life.” Many wanted to accept Him if He was their way, or their truth, but Jesus was saying that He was Truth—reality revealed, and that He was the only way to eternal life with God. He was saying that belief in Him was not just a grab bag of parts that you’re comfortable with, keeping some of the old and grafting in part of the new. According to Jesus, we must either accept Him or reject Him as He is, but what we cannot do is re-create Him into a god of our own making. In doing that very thing, Mr. Schaefer puts himself squarely in the camps of the two groups he is condemning.
Mr. Schaefer is very articulate, clearly educated and museful. He rightly condemns many of the new atheists (Richard Dawkins, et al.) as obnoxious, agenda-ed voices who misrepresent reality for their own gain. He makes a rather similar critique of the evangelical side, his parents (famous televangelists of whom I’ve never heard) included. Particularly, he condemns all evangelical believers as being singularly monetarily motivated. Mr. Schaefer rejects both groups out of hand (or at least his perception of each group).
In the place of these two groups, he crafts a religion of his own making, one with which he can be comfortable. As the book went on, it became increasingly clear to me that Mr. Schaefer is less concerned with the true nature of God and His existence than he is with his own comfort and contentment. Like Richard Dawkins, he begins piece by piece to dismantle the God of the Bible and to create Him into a god of his own image. He doesn’t buy any of the sin, wrath and condemnation parts in the Old Testament, so they are excluded, but he likes Jesus message of compassion so he adds in a heavy dose of love from the life of Jesus. A dash of grace for looking past humanity’s minor missteps and pinch of eternal consciousness from the Budhists and viola, he’s got a god he’s happy with and settles into a church that agrees with and preaches his god.
In the Gospel accounts, Jesus tells a couple parables about putting new wine in old wine skins and putting a new patch on old worn out material. These were curious stories, so I looked them up. Jesus is referring to how He was believed and perceived by different people in His day, and subsequently our day. Jesus said that He was, “the way, the truth and the life.” Many wanted to accept Him if He was their way, or their truth, but Jesus was saying that He was Truth—reality revealed, and that He was the only way to eternal life with God. He was saying that belief in Him was not just a grab bag of parts that you’re comfortable with, keeping some of the old and grafting in part of the new. According to Jesus, we must either accept Him or reject Him as He is, but what we cannot do is re-create Him into a god of our own making. In doing that very thing, Mr. Schaefer puts himself squarely in the camps of the two groups he is condemning.
January 17, 2010
In this half-memoir/half-critique, Schaeffer argues that religious fundamentalists share some basic attitudes with some current atheist writers, the "new atheists". Throughout the text, he presents some of his personal background, which includes having grown up in a famous "evangelical/fundamentalist" family. He knows many of the recent and current Evangelical Christian leaders, and is able to give some personal anecdotes, as well as responses to what they've written or stated publicly.
The main parallel that he draws between "evangelical/fundamentalists" (he contrasts this group with some evangelical Christians who he does not think fit into this category) and "new atheists" is their lack of humility in their approach to questions that cannot possibly be definitively answered by a human today. He believes that the only honest and healthy approach to questions about the universe and man's "spiritual" nature is to acknowledge both what is overwhelmingly demonstrable as true (e.g., the scientific support for evolution; Schaeffer doesn't really argue for or against it in this book but accepts it as a default, received truth, and a jumping point for follow-up arguments) and what is clearly wrong (e.g., the "inerrancy" of "the bible"; this he points out with a few examples of basic contradictions in the text, as well as ethically insulting stories).
Schaeffer's argument is effective because it is based on what appears to be a sincere attempt in his life to listen to others. He lists good arguments of those whose main points he disagrees with, though he shows little patience for those whose tone doesn't ask for it. He essentially argues that people would be much better off and happier if we would listen to each other and realize that we are evolving in our understanding of our place in the universe. One weakness of the book is an inconsistent voice in the text, which sometimes becomes too informal (e.g., sometimes it seems as if Schaeffer is throwing in gratuitous sexual descriptions or crude language that don't seem to fit in with the general approach of the book).
Overall, this book is a great choice for a reader who does not fit into either end of the spectrum that Schaeffer is describing because it serves as a warning against hubris and offers many thoughtful points for consideration. Fundamentalist might not have the patience to try to understand his approach.
The main parallel that he draws between "evangelical/fundamentalists" (he contrasts this group with some evangelical Christians who he does not think fit into this category) and "new atheists" is their lack of humility in their approach to questions that cannot possibly be definitively answered by a human today. He believes that the only honest and healthy approach to questions about the universe and man's "spiritual" nature is to acknowledge both what is overwhelmingly demonstrable as true (e.g., the scientific support for evolution; Schaeffer doesn't really argue for or against it in this book but accepts it as a default, received truth, and a jumping point for follow-up arguments) and what is clearly wrong (e.g., the "inerrancy" of "the bible"; this he points out with a few examples of basic contradictions in the text, as well as ethically insulting stories).
Schaeffer's argument is effective because it is based on what appears to be a sincere attempt in his life to listen to others. He lists good arguments of those whose main points he disagrees with, though he shows little patience for those whose tone doesn't ask for it. He essentially argues that people would be much better off and happier if we would listen to each other and realize that we are evolving in our understanding of our place in the universe. One weakness of the book is an inconsistent voice in the text, which sometimes becomes too informal (e.g., sometimes it seems as if Schaeffer is throwing in gratuitous sexual descriptions or crude language that don't seem to fit in with the general approach of the book).
Overall, this book is a great choice for a reader who does not fit into either end of the spectrum that Schaeffer is describing because it serves as a warning against hubris and offers many thoughtful points for consideration. Fundamentalist might not have the patience to try to understand his approach.
May 11, 2016
I'd never heard of author Frank Schaeffer before reading this book. He grew up in a fundamentalist family of American missionaries living in Switzerland. He went into the family business as a young man, and was apparently well-known and successful as a TV evangelist and travelling preacher. The rampant materialism and internal contradictions of the movement led him to atheism, but an abiding faith that there must be some greater purpose and meaning to life brought him to the Orthodox church. He has directed a few movies, sold paintings, and written many fiction and non-fiction books.
This background appears to be important to understanding where Schaeffer is coming from in this book, which tries to steer a middle course between "New Atheists" like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel C. Dennett and Christian fundamentalists, particularly American evangelicals such as he used to be.
I found Schaeffer's writing style to be rather dense, with long sentences full of subordinate clauses that were not always adequately set off by appropriate punctuation. His main point seems to be that anyone claiming to know the truth about the world is wrong. Such people are more interested in winning arguments and giving you rules to live by than in actually letting you live your life. Schaeffer suggests that being a good and moral person is better than believing in the "right" truths, regardless of who is promoting those truths. Let love be your guide, he says, and you will find your purpose, whether within a faith tradition or without one. Essentially, I think Schaeffer is saying that treating others as you wish to be treated is a good way to live, although he takes a very roundabout way to get there.
This background appears to be important to understanding where Schaeffer is coming from in this book, which tries to steer a middle course between "New Atheists" like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel C. Dennett and Christian fundamentalists, particularly American evangelicals such as he used to be.
I found Schaeffer's writing style to be rather dense, with long sentences full of subordinate clauses that were not always adequately set off by appropriate punctuation. His main point seems to be that anyone claiming to know the truth about the world is wrong. Such people are more interested in winning arguments and giving you rules to live by than in actually letting you live your life. Schaeffer suggests that being a good and moral person is better than believing in the "right" truths, regardless of who is promoting those truths. Let love be your guide, he says, and you will find your purpose, whether within a faith tradition or without one. Essentially, I think Schaeffer is saying that treating others as you wish to be treated is a good way to live, although he takes a very roundabout way to get there.
June 4, 2010
At times really beautiful; at other times a mish mash of stories and ideas. His central point is wonderful (When it comes to belief and disbelief in God, certainty is harmful and divisive; embracing paradox, mystery and love is our best choice.) but was made over and over in a variety of (sometimes tangential and self-indulgent)ways. Here are some of my favorite thoughts from this sometimes essay, sometimes memoir:
"Take the sum total of human experience, discount it by a wide margin because we know we'll never know, take the one overaching lesson from reality--humility--to heart, and move forward together."
"With all due respect to Dawkins, mystery trumps everything. With all due respect to the theologians, every true story begins with the words "In spite of what I thought at the time..."
"At its best faith in God is about Thanksgiving, shared suffering, loss, pain, generosity, and love. The best religous people and the best secular people learn to ignore their chosen (or inherited) religions' nastier teachings in order to preserve the spirit of their faith, be that faith in secular humanism, science, or in God."
"I think most people are better than their official theology and/or ideology. There are wars aplenty in the world and hatred abounds, but there is also peace aplenty and love abounds as well.There are extremists in all our camps...they have anger, or worse the blind certainty of their correctness, but the rest of us have the numbers. The future belongs to the peacemakers."
"Take the sum total of human experience, discount it by a wide margin because we know we'll never know, take the one overaching lesson from reality--humility--to heart, and move forward together."
"With all due respect to Dawkins, mystery trumps everything. With all due respect to the theologians, every true story begins with the words "In spite of what I thought at the time..."
"At its best faith in God is about Thanksgiving, shared suffering, loss, pain, generosity, and love. The best religous people and the best secular people learn to ignore their chosen (or inherited) religions' nastier teachings in order to preserve the spirit of their faith, be that faith in secular humanism, science, or in God."
"I think most people are better than their official theology and/or ideology. There are wars aplenty in the world and hatred abounds, but there is also peace aplenty and love abounds as well.There are extremists in all our camps...they have anger, or worse the blind certainty of their correctness, but the rest of us have the numbers. The future belongs to the peacemakers."
Displaying 1 - 30 of 54 reviews