Frank Schaeffer's Latest Book: Patience With God--Overview

This post is an overview of Frank Schaeffer's latest book, Patience With God: Faith For People Who Don't Like Religion (Or Atheism), which came out in October 2009. Frank wrote Patience With God in response to readers of his memoir, Crazy For God, who wanted to know more about Frank's current spiritual understanding.

Frank's message in Patience With God is that fundamentalism doesn't work. It simply doesn't match reality. In Patience With God, Frank goes beyond religious fundamentalism to a way of faith that honors ambiguity. I would even say that Frank's writing itself honors ambiguity: Frank writes with enthusiastic patience, witty seriousness, and in his own words "hopeful uncertainty."

Frank knows fundamentalism inside and out. As the son of fundamentalist evangelical Christian missionaries Francis and Edith Schaeffer (founders of the L'Abri ministry in Switzerland in the 1950s), Frank grew up immersed in a fundamentalist worldview. There was only one right way to salvation, and it was imperative to communicate this one right way to others so that they, too, could be saved. During the 1970s and 1980s, Frank and his father helped establish the political religious right in the United States. They worked closely with James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell, speaking vigorously against abortion and even advocating civil disobedience when the law of the land contradicted Biblical mandates. Since then, Frank has rejected his former fundamentalist beliefs. He remains a Christian but now practices his faith within the Greek Orthodox Church, which emphasizes the mystery of God rather than certainty about God.

Patience With God unpacks fundamentalism for us--first, by taking us deep into the world of the fundamentalist in Part I. Frank's genius is to explore fundamentalism in both Christian and Atheist versions. Frank examines not only Christian mega-church pastor Rick Warren and Christian apocalyptic authors Jerry Jenkins and Tim LaHaye but also New Atheists Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens. Frank unearths little-known information and draws fascinating parallels, exposing--on both Christian and Atheist sides--the same bedrock of certainty, the same urge to convert others, the same denigration of those who don't accept the approved version of truth.

None of this matches reality, says Frank, for reality is full of paradox. How, then, do we find faith in a paradoxical world? Frank answers this question in Part II by opening his own life to us, particularly those people and events that have served as catalysts for his faith. With Frank, we experience the loving discipline and inclusive Christianity of Headmaster Gordon Parke at Great Walstead School in England. We chafe yet thrive under the tough love of the Drill Instructors at the Marine Corps boot camp on Parris Island. We struggle to embrace both the depth of love and the depth of loss at the death of Frank's dear friend John Bazlinton. We delight in Frank's sheer joy as he massages, bathes, holds, loves his infant granddaughter, Lucy. Frank sees hints--not certainties, but hints--of God's presence and love in all these catalysts.

Frank is a masterful storyteller. Patience With God reads with the rhythmic flow of conversation: Frank's discussions of ideas are interspersed with his delightful and often humorous stories. Frank sees Patience With God as a conversation about faith, a meeting place for those dissatisfied with fundamentalist answers, and a search for a spiritual path that matches reality--a path where paradox is honored and where faith and doubt coexist. It is an invitation into what Frank calls the Church of Hopeful Uncertainty.

My subsequent posts will explore ideas that Frank Schaeffer's Patience With God raises for me.

EfM Year 1 Chapter 9: Abraham Saga (Part II) in Genesis 15-18:15, 21-25:18

For EfM purposes, Part II of the Abraham Saga consists of these elements.

• Two covenant accounts: the first by the Yahwist writer where God binds Godself to the covenant by passing through the animal carcasses as a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch but requires nothing of Abraham; the second by the Priestly writer where God requires circumcision of Abraham
• Name change: Abram to Abraham and Sarai to Sarah, inserting the Hebrew letter Hay, which represents the insertion of God's name into the names Abraham and Sarah
• Circumcising all Abraham's males
• Visitation of Yahweh to Abraham and Sarah and birth of Isaac
• Dismissal of Hagar and Ishmael
• Abraham's near-sacrifice of Isaac
• Sarah's death and Abraham's purchase of the Cave at Machpelah
• Abraham's old age and death

These are some of my thoughts upon working with this part of the Abraham Saga.

MYSTERIUM TREMENDUM ET FASCINANS (RUDOLF OTTO). The course materials say that Rudolf Otto describes the holy as "the mystery which both attracts with its fascination and terrifies with its overwhelming power." (Page 124) The course materials also say that, according to Otto, both elements are necessary: "An experience which simply overwhelms in a purely negative way could not be an experience of the divine but only of the demonic; one which attracts without striking fear would be merely sentimental." (Page 124)

I cannot imagine where Otto got this idea that any encounter with God has to both attract and terrify. I know that Catherine Marshall describes a time of great difficulty in her life during which she experienced the presence of God as a deep calming loving utterly peaceful presence--no terror at all. I think, too, of people who, during prayer, experience ecstasy and deep joy--no terror. I think of myself and how I have heard God simply as a quiet thought in my mind--no terror.

CIRCUMCISION. One wonders where this off-the-wall idea came from. The course materials suggest that circumcision may have originally been part of a marriage rite. The only thing I can think of is that perhaps it helped in keeping the penis clean in a desert, where water was scarce. Certainly it isn't necessary today.

It's also pretty clear that only the males rated having a sign in their flesh of their covenant with God. But then would we really want God to prescribe female circumcision as well, which I understand is quite awful.

I think that the penis is best left alone in its natural state.

It's interesting to consider what the mark of a Christian is. It's a life of love. People are to know who is a Christian by the love demonstrated in the Christian's life. I guess, though, that you could say this of any valid religion: a practitioner's life would be characterized by love.

HOSPITALITY. This was essential in the nomadic life of the desert. It was crucial to keep hospitality alive. Everyone's life depended upon hospitality at one time or another, and by offering hospitality, everyone ensured that hospitality remained active.

This leads me to think about hospitality today. Hospitality is essential today for spiritual sustenance. Opening our homes to each other for nourishment, refreshment, and soul enrichment keeps human connections alive.

ABRAHAM'S NEAR-SACRIFICE OF ISAAC. The course materials suggest that radical obedience to God may include obedience even when God commands something that is wrong according to usual moral sensibility. I say no. I will not obey if "God" commands something that I believe is wrong. My responsibility is to listen to my own inner knowing, not to some outer "God."

I can only imagine what this incident did to destroy Isaac's trust in his father and in God.

CHESED. Chesed, according to the course materials, includes the meaning of being true to one's nature. I think of God being true to God's nature of compassion. This helps me, somehow, in relating to very painful times in my childhood--times of terror and shame. I may at some point say more about this in my blog, but for now, further thoughts on this are best kept in my journal.

EfM Year 1 Chapter 8: Abraham Saga (Part I) in Genesis 11:10-14:24, 18:16-20:18

For EfM purposes, Part I of the Abraham Saga consists of these elements.

• Abraham's call to leave his father's house and go to the land which God would show him, along with God's promise to make Abraham a great nation and to bless all nations and peoples through Abraham
• Abraham's entrance into Canaan and his building of altars at Shechem and at Bethel, along with God's promise of the land
• Abraham's sojourn in Egypt during a famine and his deception of Pharaoh by telling Pharaoh that Sarah was Abraham's sister instead of his wife
• Lot's departure for the plains of Sodom and Gomorrah and God's contract of the land with Abraham
• Abraham's rescue of Lot from capture by neighboring kings and Abraham's encounter with the King and High Priest Melchizedek of Salem, who worshiped God Most High
• Abraham's pleading with God not to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah if ten righteous were found there and Abraham's gazing over the smoking plains of Sodom and Gomorrah the next day
• Abraham's sojourn in Gerar and his deception of King Abimelech by telling Abimelech that Sarah was Abraham's sister instead of his wife

These are some of my thoughts upon studying this part of the Abraham Saga.

GOD'S WAY OF FAITH. The EfM course materials point out that, after the story of the Tower of Babel, we don't have a statement of God's continuing care, as we do after the fall of Adam and Eve, after Cain's murder of Abel, and after the flood. Instead, say the course materials, the Abraham Saga and actually the whole rest of the Bible is the statement of God's continuing care after the Tower of Babel and indeed after the whole sweep of spreading sin in Genesis 1-11. The course materials say that human initiative simply doesn't cut it in maintaining a relationship with God: humans are not able to sustain the goodness of being created in God's image nor to attain the righteous behavior of Noah. Instead, say the course materials, once sin entered the world, it spread and spread until sin ruled in human hearts. Given this state of sin, salvation simply cannot come from human efforts--I guess because the sinfulness of the human heart will subvert any effort to be good. Therefore, God has to take the initiative, and our role is to respond to God in faith as Abraham did. Even after responding in faith to God, God's chosen people of Israel keep falling away and God continues to extend grace. So that's where we are with the course materials.

Now, here's what I think. Yes, of course God's chosen people of Israel continue to fall away time and again. Why? Probably because they are obeying commands from an outside God authority that they haven't fully bought into. They have to follow what God wants all the time, and this makes them grumpy--just as it made me grumpy to have Jesus on the throne of my heart always telling me what he wanted me to do. Being good will never work if goodness is someone else's idea--even God's idea--imposed from outside. Being good will only work when it comes from one's own God-place within, when it emerges as one's own deepest desire.

Even when we do deeply desire to change, we usually find that change is a process, not something that happens overnight. We may make a decision to change and yet still find ourselves enacting our old thought and behavior patterns. This is because our old thoughts and behavior have become ingrained. To un-ingrain these patterns and replace them with new patterns, we need to recognize when we slip into old patterns, acknowledge what has happened, reaffirm our commitment to the new patterns, and, to the extent possible, reverse what we have thought or said or done.

We can take racism as an example. I may consciously reject racism, but it's also true that I was raised in a heavily racist society, so sometimes I may say something that reveals latent racism. When I notice that this has happened, I can say, "Ah, what I just said comes from the racism I was raised with. My automatic response shows me that I still have the remnants of racism within me. Now that I see what just happened, I consciously reject what I just said. Here is what I believe instead."

It takes regular conscious work to replace old ingrained thought and behavior patterns with new ones. As we see the old patterns continuing to surface, this doesn't mean that the thoughts of our hearts are only evil continually. It just means that change is a process that occurs over time, even a whole lifetime of time.

Finally, I wonder how the idea of the sinfulness of all human hearts squares with the response of some native people groups to Christian missionaries. These native peoples say something like this: "Jesus came for Western people, but he didn't need to come for us because we have never strayed from the way God laid down for us in the beginning." There are groups of Native Australians who live in harmony with nature and each other and God, who wake up in gratitude for God's many blessings each morning, who pursue peaceful and fulfilling lives. They do not experience that the thoughts of their hearts are only evil continually. Quite the contrary.

ALLEVIATION OF ANXIETY ONLY THROUGH FAITH IN GOD NOT THROUGH HUMAN INVENTIVENESS. Yes, I can see this. A major source of human anxiety is not being able to get our basic needs met--and to get our needs met in our society, we need money. So we have retirement plans based on the stock market, which has a tendency to plummet. We have failed financial institution after failed financial institution, with the accompanying credit crunches and home foreclosures. We had Enron not long ago, with its creative financing (posting profits based on projected, not realized, income) and the subsequent loss of retirement funds by employees who were heavily invested in Enron stock when the company tanked. We have health insurance programs based on for-profit insurance companies who of course don't want to pay premiums because it's bad for their bottom line. Human inventiveness to alleviate financial anxiety seems only to produce more financial anxiety.

I would say that, whenever we find ourselves acting frantically to be secure, we're relying on human inventiveness in what we know deep down is a fallen world.

So what does it look like to rely on faith in God? Actually, I'm not sure I would word it quite like that, since this implies an outside God entity. We really need to come from the God-place within. Coming from the God-place within, I would say that we do need to be wise in doing what we can to provide for our own financial stability and that, when things are tight, we need to go to that deep God-place to find solutions. I do wonder what it would look like if wise leaders throughout the world would come together, go to the inner God-place together, and share their wisdom. In any case, it's clear that we are not doing this, and we are paying the consequences for grasping toward what we hope will lead to financial security, all based on human inventiveness--and these inventive humans are steeped in a fallen world.

ABRAHAM'S ALTARS. The course materials say this about Abraham's altars at Shechem (the Oak of Moreh) and at Bethel: "These verses show Abram coming to the shrines of the Canaanites and building altars to YHWH. The oak of Moreh was such a shrine, as was the mountain between Bethel and Ai (vv. 6, 8). In calling on the name of YHWH (v. 8), Abram claims these sites for YHWH against Canaanite gods. This is the first example of the opposition between Yahwism and the baalism (fertility worship) of the Canaanites; it will occur again and again." (Page 115)

If Abraham was really putting up his altars to YHWH in opposition to the Canaanites' gods, then I find this highly disrespectful. It also does not escape my notice that Abraham's altars apparently did not bother the Canaanites, who had no problem with other gods. They were happy to respect Abraham's altars next to theirs. (Neither does it escape my attention that the EfM course materials capitalize 'Yahwism" but not "baalism.")

ISRAEL'S MESSIANIC PURPOSE. Apparently, God called Abraham in order to have Abraham's descendants become God's special people who would bring God's blessing to the whole world. This is something to remember. As Jews or Christians, our purpose is to bring God's blessing to the world. Not to convert the world to our way of believing, but to bring God's blessing to the world.

In addition, I would extend this idea to all religions. All religions have a messianic purpose. Each religion has a special blessing from God to bring to the world. Jews bless the world in one way, Christians in another, Muslims in another, Buddhists in another, Hindus in another, Pagans in another. Yes, even the Baalists.

ABRAHAM'S PLEADING WITH GOD FOR SODOM AND GOMORRAH. The course materials make a wonderful point. The materials say that the ancient law of mass blood revenge required that the whole community suffer for the sins of the one or the few, that the later law of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth limited revenge to the specific offense and the specific offender, and that Jesus asked us even to forego revenge. But Abraham takes a different view. If, under the law of mass blood revenge, the many so often suffer for the sins of the few, why shouldn't the many be extended grace for the righteousness of the few? Thus, Abraham pleads with God to spare all of Sodom and Gomorrah if only ten righteous souls are found there.

This is a wonderful idea! It certainly fits with the idea that once a certain number of people live into a new paradigm, that paradigm suddenly tips, and nearly everyone starts living it out. It also fits with the idea of putting good energy into the world. It makes me excited about trying to be one who contributes to bringing compassion into the world.

ABRAHAM'S GAZE UPON THE SMOKING PLAINS OF SODOM AND GOMORRAH. Genesis 19:27-28 says, "Abraham went early in the morning to the place where he had stood before the Lord; and he looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah and toward all the land of the Plain and saw the smoke of the land going up like the smoke of a furnace."

I find this heart-wrenching. Abraham had pled with God, God had promised to spare Sodom and Gomorrah for the sake of ten righteous people there, and not even ten righteous had been found. Abraham gazes out over the smoking plain, utterly destroyed, reduced to ashes.

Efm Year 1 Chapter 7: The Tower of Babel in Genesis 10-11:9

The story of the Tower of Babel tells how God confused the language of the earth so that people would be unable to communicate. This brings up the question of language and communication. What enhances communication and what inhibits communication? Even more basic, what is communication?

When people communicate deeply--really hear each other and understand each other--it is deeply fulfilling. I think that this is because it reinforces our essential oneness. In our physical forms on earth, we experience a certain degree of separation from each other. Intimate communication is so fulfilling because it brings us in touch with that deeper truth of our oneness. Even if we are expressing different opinions, the knowledge that among us we have these varied opinions and that we are united in understanding and respecting each other is fulfilling. We don't have to agree with each other to understand and to be understood.

As I think about the Tower of Babel story, I wonder if the people there couldn't have managed to understand each other if they had tried. In Genesis 11:7, God says, "Come, let us go down, and confuse their language there, so that they will not understand one another's speech." The result was that God "scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth" (Genesis 11:8a). Was it really necessary for the people to scatter and leave off building their tower and uniting together in a city simply because they were suddenly unable to understand each other's speech? I don't think so. I think that this may be another indication of the spread of sin, as the biblical writers seem so insistent on emphasizing. The people suddenly couldn't understand each other's speech, so they scattered and left off their project. I believe that, if they had taken time to slow down, get beyond their initial frustration, and ask themselves how they could continue their project even with different languages, they would have found a way. Certainly, people can cooperate and build a tower without speaking the same language.

When people have different opinions, then respect and a desire for understanding can enhance communication. We can have very profitable conversations if we seek, not to convince the other, but to seek to understand the other. People can broaden and deepen their understanding of a subject if they listen closely to those with other views on the subject in a spirit of trying to understand these different points of view, especially if all participants in the exchange share this goal of mutual understanding.

Such a conversation allows me to clarify my own thoughts on the subject, to open myself to other views, to compare my own views with those of others in a spirit of openness, and finally to reach a deeper understanding of the subject. The key is a deep willingness to see how things look through others' eyes. I may come away more deeply convinced of my original view while understanding others' positions more fully, or I may modify my original view in light of what I have heard. I experience this type of listening at the Philosophy Cafe of the New Orleans Lyceum. At Philo Cafe meetings, we consider a question and everyone has a chance to speak to that question. There is much openness to the expression of different views. I have also experienced this type of listening in conversations with friends where we have different views but truly listen to each other in order to understand, not to convince.

Certainly problems arise in communication when we "speak different languages" even though we speak the same language. I think of the elderly gentleman at Galatoire's Restaurant a few years ago who tossed an after-dinner mint onto the table of nearby diners, meaning this as a traditional friendly greeting. One man at the other table, though, took the gesture as an insult, followed the elderly gentleman out of the restaurant, and bashed in his head on the sidewalk to avenge the "insult." This is an example of speaking different languages and of jumping to conclusions, assuming the worst of another. This kind of thing also happens on the international level and causes completely unnecessary wars.

Intercultural communication can be fraught with this kind of misunderstanding. U.S. Americans working with Japanese may appoint the most experienced team member, a young man, to head a task, and the Japanese will be appalled at the lack of respect shown in passing over the eldest team member. In the United States, it makes sense to have the most experienced person head a task, regardless of age or rank; in Japan, this honor is given to the eldest person out of respect, knowing that the elder will consult those more experienced before making decisions. In some cultures, children will avoid looking into the eyes of those in authority in order to show respect; in the dominant white U.S. American culture, the aversion of eyes is taken to be a sign of lying. This causes trouble for children of eye-averting cultures in school. A university student from another country may address a U.S. American professor by last name only without title, calling the professor "Smith" instead of Dr. Smith or Mr. Smith or Ms. Smith. The professor may feel insulted, while the student thinks that he or she is using the correct form of address. An Arabic speaker may ask, "Isn't Mr. Jones in today?" meaning "It appears to me that Mr. Jones isn't in today and I'm asking to confirm if this is indeed true," but a U.S. American may mistakenly hear an insinuation that Mr. Jones really ought to be in today and how dare he be away.

Intercultural miscommunication occurs, not only between people from different cultures, but also between different sub-groups within the same general culture. Books have been written about the misunderstandings between men and women stemming from their different styles of communication. Deborah Tannen has done a great deal of very helpful research and writing in this area. She says that men's talk often has a competitive goal, while women's talk has a bonding goal. As a result, a husband may not talk much to his wife, grateful for the respite from competition at home, while the wife feels that her silent husband doesn't want to bond with her. I also see miscommunication between faculty and students and between administration and faculty at universities.

Those are some of my reflections on communication, emerging from the Tower of Babel story.

EfM Year 1 Chapter 6: The Flood in Genesis 6-9

In the story of the flood, we have the spread of evil to all human society. Here is how the biblical writers put it.

The Lord saw that the wickedness of humankind was great in the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually. (Genesis 6:5)

Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight, and the earth was filled with violence. And God saw that the earth was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon the earth. (Genesis 6:11-12)

And when the Lord smelled the pleasing odor, the Lord said in his heart, "I will never again curse the ground because of humankind, for the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth." (Genesis 8:21a)

Here is the explanation in the course materials.

It would be impossible, after this development of the theme of sin, to think of it only in terms of "bad things" that people do. Sin is not simply a few bad actions which occur more or less on the surface of life, so that we might go through a whole day, perhaps even longer, having "committed" no sin. Pride, community alienation, and corruption of the heart are, in the point of view of the biblical writers, more than part of the everyday makeup of humankind; by our fallenness they have become part of us. If we do "right"--and the biblical writers are as insistent on our obligation to do so as they are on the fact of sin--it will be through obedience, and not by "doing what comes naturally." The "nature" of humankind, in the true sense of the word, is "good" because we are God's creatures and are in God's image; but what has become "second nature" to us is not to be trusted: the "thoughts of the heart" are "only evil continually"! (Pages 92-93)

That last sentence in the course materials is important: "The 'nature' of humankind, in the true sense of the word, is 'good' because we are God's creatures and are in God's image; but what has become 'second nature' to us is not to be trusted: the 'thoughts of the heart' are 'only evil continually'!"

Is it true that the thoughts of our hearts are only evil continually and that our second nature is not to be trusted? I wouldn't put it like that. I certainly don't think that it's helpful to teach this to children. Here's why: This implies that the source of our evil is inside us and that the source of our good is outside us. The course materials even say that the way we do good is through obedience, not by following what comes naturally to us. Obedience implies an outside authority whom we obey.

My goodness! Think how grumpy that will make / does make us. I have all these things I want to do naturally, but they aren't good, they are sinful, so to be good, I have to obey what God says even though I don't naturally want to. I spend my life suppressing what I naturally want and obeying this outer authority. I never get to fulfill my desires because I always have to obey God's desires. I'm always going against the grain.

I can think of an acquaintance who did something like this in real life--he obeyed his father rather than what he naturally wanted to do. This acquaintance naturally wanted to make music. He wanted to major in music in college and become a musician. His father, however, wanted him to be a partner in the family business and insisted that his son major in business and then work in the family business. This acquaintance did so. He did not follow what he naturally wanted to do (become a musician) but chose to obey his father (become a partner in the family business). This made him very unhappy and ruined his marriage. The minute his father died, he sold the family business and returned to his first love, music. And he is much, much happier!

The story of this acquaintance is much like what I experienced when Jesus was on the throne of my heart, controlling my life. I couldn't do what came naturally to me because I had to obey what Jesus wanted me to do. I was unhappy and grumpy because I was trying to twist myself into someone I wasn't, just as this acquaintance was doing. As soon as I removed Jesus from the throne of my heart and put myself back in control, I was much happier.

We just aren't going to be happy by suppressing who we are and what we desire in order to obey commands coming to us from outside ourselves, from God.

And it's just plain old not true that the thoughts of our hearts are only evil continually. Good is inside us. It's part of who we are as human beings. We need to learn to look, not to commands from God outside ourselves, but to our inner depths to discover what we desire at our core. We desire good. At our core, we will find a God-place that is ALREADY THERE INSIDE US AS PART OF OUR BEING. This is a place filled with wisdom, compassion, justice, creativity, love, joy, peace. It is far different from the surface emotions that blow across our lives and that can lead to evil, as when we hurt someone in anger just for the momentary rush of power or take from others to alleviate our fear of not having enough.

I believe that it is wrong to say that acting on surface emotions is acting from our selves and that acting from the deep God-place is acting in obedience to God outside ourselves, as though the evil comes from us and the good from an outer God. No, the evil and the good are both part of us--the evil on the surface and the good at our deep core. The deep core is very accessible. I found this out quickly once I got Jesus off the throne of my heart and looked to see what I really deeply want. What I really deeply want is not to get a momentary rush of power by displaying anger or to frantically alleviate fear by seizing what I think I need. What I really deeply want is to act from wisdom, compassion, justice, love. This is what I myself want, not just what obedience to God's commands asks of me. When I am just obeying God, I become grumpy because I am suppressing what I want. But when I myself find and act from the goodness within, then I am joyful.

Frank Schaeffer's Marine Corps Novel: Baby Jack--Who Is God?

In my previous post, I wrote about the way God behaves in Frank Schaeffer's novel about the United States Marine Corps--Baby Jack. In this post, I will discuss what Frank Schaeffer may be trying to say about God through the character of God in Baby Jack.

Here is a summary of God's behavior in Baby Jack.

• God doesn't seem to care about human suffering.
• God enjoys drama.
• God loves the pure in heart.
• God has a sense of humor about religion.
• God uses strong language.
• God insults and injures Todd.
• God extends grace to Todd through Jack's letter.

To me, it is key that God's behavior ultimately results in reconciliation among people who have been alienated from each other: Todd has been alienated from his son Jack, from Jack's girlfriend Jessica, and from his grandson Baby Jack whom Todd doesn't even know about.

I think that perhaps God's initial harshness with Todd through SDI Jackson is a way of bringing Todd face to face with the wrongness of his behavior. Todd is filled with grief because he did not communicate with Jack after Jack's departure for boot camp, and now Jack is dead and it is too late. But perhaps Todd needs to see that it goes deeper than this--that Todd's life has been about fulfilling his own ambitions while Jack's life has been about true service. And yet more--in opposing Jack's enlistment in the Marines, Todd was trying to get Jack's life also to be about fulfilling Todd's ambitions. Todd wanted to weave Jack's life story into his own, so that he could say proudly to his friends that he had a son with a successful career.

In addition, Todd hadn't wanted to relent and reach out to Jack because of his ingrained stubbornness--Todd had told Jack that he would never speak with Jack again if Jack went through with his enlistment in the Marines, and Todd did not want to appear "weak" by relenting. Besides all this, Todd had shown deep disrespect for Jack at Jack's funeral when Todd exploded in anger at the objects of Jack's service--the Marines and the United States flag.

I think that God wants to focus Todd's attention on Todd's own selfishness and its consequences, and physical pain is a harsh but effective means of focusing attention. There is also something very concrete about an injury, such as Todd's broken ribs. The injury can't be undone, just as Todd's behavior and its consequences can't be undone. I think that the broken ribs say this to Todd: "The consequences of your behavior toward Jack are just as real and concrete as your broken ribs." The broken ribs will heal, but not overnight and not with the snap of a finger.

Once Todd reaches this realization, as shown by his shouting "I'M SORRY, SIR!" to SDI Jackson, God gently helps Todd to stand up and then gives Todd a letter from Jack--a letter that Jack had written to his father and asked SDI Jackson to give to his father if Jack should be killed in action. SDI Jackson had decided never to give the letter to Todd after hearing how Todd had spit on the United States flag at Jack's funeral, but that decision is now reversed and Todd receives Jack's letter.

Jack's letter brings tremendous grace and healing. First, Jack explains his reasons for enlisting in the Marine Corps. Todd had been obsessed with wanting to know WHY his son had chosen military service. Receiving an answer to this WHY puts something to rest in Todd. Understanding why really does help Todd to accept Jack's choice.

Second, Jack asks his father to be kind to Jessica. As a result of this request in Jack's letter, Todd goes to visit Jessica and is introduced to Baby Jack, his grandson, with all the joy that accompanies a new family member. Baby Jack's two families, Jack's family and Jessica's family, are reconciled.

Third, Jack encourages Jessica to live her life and to love another man. This frees Jessica to open her heart to the Marine recruiter Patrick, whom she is starting to love and who has given indications that he would like to marry Jessica. This will also give Baby Jack a father in physical form on earth.

So God's behavior ultimately results in reconciliation. God even points out that Jack's death, painful as it was for his loved ones, resulted in Baby Jack's being alive. Jessica had been thinking of aborting her baby but decided to let the baby live when she heard that Jack was dead, as the baby was her means of connecting with Jack.

But what about God's indifference to human suffering on a general basis and God's enjoyment of drama even when this drama results in great pain? I can't help but think that this is our perception of God's behavior. God takes a longer view than we do, an eternal view. This is why God isn't so interested in saving souls, while the Marine Corps Drill Instructors work intensely to "save the souls" of their recruits. The Drill Instructors have only three months to turn their recruits from nasty civilians into disciplined Marines. God has eternity to "save" us. If we don't "get it" in this lifetime, we will have eternity to "get it"--either in the spirit world or in subsequent lifetimes on earth if reincarnation turns out to be part of reality. Maybe Frank Schaeffer is presenting us with a God who is just plain lively--a God who doesn't get bogged down in suffering, who appreciates the drama of life, who has a sense of humor, who expresses feelings with strong language. Maybe we can say this: God knows that the final outcome is assured, we will all be reconciled with God in the end, so God can relax and enjoy the process even when it goes awry temporarily, say for a few thousand years.

It's certainly true that people do better in life when they hold pain lightly, especially their own--when they take a larger view and focus on something greater than themselves and their painful circumstances. I think of Jean-Dominique Bauby, who was completely paralyzed as the result of a massive stroke--his only means of communication was to use eye blinks to spell out words on an alphabet chart--and yet who wrote a book using this blinking manner of communication. I also think of Joni Eareckson Tada, who has been paralyzed from the shoulders down as the result of a diving accident at age seventeen (she's now sixty) and who has led an active life as an artist (drawing with a pen between her teeth), an author, an actor, a public speaker, a wife, and the founder of an organization that promotes independence for people with handicaps. I think, too, of my friend Ellen, who has had a blood condition for years that restricts her activities, necessitates regular medical treatments, and often exhausts her, but Ellen enjoys an active life of reading, writing, French teaching, babysitting for friends, attending plays, gardening, entertaining, and engaging in stimulating conversations.

I also want to comment on God's love for the pure in heart, like First Sergeant Stan O'Malley. I think that, for Frank Schaeffer, being pure in heart means being a person whose words and actions match his or her thoughts. Jessica, Jack's girlfriend, is also someone like this. Once Jack is dead, he can swim inside his loved ones, and Jack says this of swimming in Jessica: "The amazing thing about Jessica is that what she says and what she is thinking is usually the same thing. With most people there's an internal conversation that's different from what they're saying. Swimming in them is like watching a 3-D movie without the glasses. Thoughts and words overlap but not exactly. But with Jessica her thoughts and words are in sync" (page 256). I think Frank is saying that God deeply appreciates a person like this.

So maybe this is what Frank Schaeffer is saying about God in Baby Jack.

• God is who God is, not who we want or need God to be.
• God's actions may seem harsh from our perspective, but they ultimately offer grace and lead to reconciliation.
• God is a lively God who enjoys the process of life, knowing that the final outcome will be well.
• God loves those whose words and actions match their thoughts.

Frank Schaeffer's Marine Corps Novel: Baby Jack--God's Behavior

My previous post gave an overview of Frank Schaeffer's novel about the United States Marine Corps--Baby Jack. This post will discuss the way God behaves in Baby Jack.

In Part IV of Baby Jack, Todd--overcome with grief at Jack's death in Iraq--visits the Marine Corps boot camp at Parris Island. And in Part IV, the novel takes on a new dimension in that two worlds merge--the everyday world and the supernatural world. Or we might say that Frank Schaeffer draws aside the veil that separates the spirit world from the physical world and allows us, the readers, to see more of reality, the part of reality that is usually invisible to us. Thus, Part IV is narrated by Jack in his non-physical post-death form. We become aware of the presence of other "dead" Marines, and God interacts with Jack and with Todd.

How does God behave in Baby Jack? We learn immediately that God does not behave as we might expect.

First, God doesn't pay attention to human suffering. God pays no attention to Todd's grief, pays no attention to a Marine who died a slow death while praying for his son, never lifts a finger for any of the Drill Instructors although God loves them, refuses to help Jessica in her grief over Jack. When Todd visits a barracks, puts his arm around a sleeping recruit, closes his eyes, and wills it to be Jack when he opens his eyes--God only laughs. Jack says of God that "most of the time he doesn't seem to care about what he calls the 'minor annoying shit.' To give you an idea, these 'minor annoyances' God refuses to do anything about include sick and dying children and old people begging for forgiveness" (page 227).

Not only does God ignore human suffering, but God also enjoys drama. Therefore, God admires people like Hitler, Stalin, and Caligula because they create drama, tension, and excitement on a large scale. God even says, "A million martyrs' voices rising up crying 'Lord Have Mercy!' Talk about an off-stage chorus giving me chills!" (page 211). God also says that, in the long run, there is a happy ending, but God then explains, "Not 'happy' in the way you Americans think of it, rather happy the way Shakespeare understands things, dramatically satisfying if somewhat dark" (page 228). This causes Jack to exclaim, "Does anyone know or care that a wannabe theatre director is in charge of the universe?" (page 228).

The kind of person God loves most is a person with a pure heart. In fact, the person God loves the most on earth is USMC First Sergeant Stan O'Malley, who trains the Drill Instructors who will then train recruits to be Marines. O'Malley "believes in the mission of the Corps" (page 208). O'Malley's "faith is pure" (page 208). O'Malley is "without guile" (page 208). Whenever O'Malley killed men during war, O'Malley did it quickly with a clean head shot, and O'Malley "never gloated or took pleasure in their deaths" (page 209). God often comes to listen when O'Malley speaks, as do many dead Marines in their non-physical form.

God has a sense of humor (as does Frank Schaeffer!), and God uses strong language. When religious fundamentalists die, they are often shocked to find themselves in the company of infidels and to find that God is very different from their imaginings. For example, when a certain Southern Baptist minister dies and is confronted with God's profanity, the minister tells God that God himself needs to repent and invite Jesus Christ into God's heart, to which God replies, "What are you talking about? . . . I'm an atheist for Christ's sake!" (page 209). God has a low opinion of so-called religious places: God has "called Jerusalem 'the stupidest place on earth' and then muttered, 'three great mono-theistic religions my ass!'" (page 209). Of the Second Coming of Jesus, God says, "'Second Coming' my ass, not after how it went down the first time around. You try and talk him into it!" (page 211).

Near the end of the novel, there is the scene in which God speaks to Todd through Senior Drill Instructor Isaac Jackson, Jack's Senior Drill Instructor during Jack's three months in boot camp. Through SDI Jackson's voice and body, God insults Todd, puts him in a choke-hold until he passes out, and breaks three of his ribs. Then God, through SDI Jackson, becomes gentle with Todd and hands Todd the letter from Jack that SDI Jackson had been withholding. (Jack had written a letter to his father and entrusted it to SDI Jackson, asking SDI Jackson to pass it on to Todd if Jack should be killed in action. When SDI Jackson heard of Todd's disrespectful behavior at Jack's funeral--shouting insults at the Marines and spitting on the United States flag--SDI Jackson had resolved never to give Jack's letter to his father.)

And here is the beautiful thing. Jack's letter is a means of grace and reconciliation. In the letter, Jack explains to his father why he joined the Marine Corps, asks his father to be kind to Jessica, and encourages Jessica to live her life and seek another man to love. This brings about reconciliation among Todd, Jack, Jessica, and Baby Jack.

So we have a God who doesn't seem to care about human suffering, who loves drama, who loves the pure in heart, who has a sense of humor about religion, who uses strong language, who injures Todd, and who provides Todd with the means of grace and reconciliation.

In my next post, I will discuss what Frank Schaeffer may be trying to say about God through the character of God in Baby Jack.