(Edited to add link 9/25/05)

See this link for Spunky's website where you can find her original review: Spunky Homeschool

(Spunky:)

The Doctrine of Wrongful Suffering in Silence

At this point, rather than explain further how a woman should handle situations where a husband crosses that "bright red line" or engages in domestic violence, Michael launches off into the doctrine of wrongful suffering in silence.

If you are not at least moderately versed in Scripture and in the will and ways of God, this doctrine of suffering abuse in silence for the glory of God will amaze you. (emphasis in the original)

Using I Peter 2 and 3 as the primary text he states on page 262,

The servant is not given the option of deciding that the master is not acting within the will of God and therefore should not be obeyed. It is acceptable with God (God's will) for the underling to suffer wrongfully and take it patiently.

You will surely wonder, "why is it the will of God for the underling to suffer at the hands of an unjust, and perverse authority?" Two reasons are obvious, one of which we have already stated. First, the chain of command must remain intact, even to the point of allowing some abuse. The other reason is introduced in verse 20 - glory.

We were created by God and placed upon this earth to express his glory (Ps. 8:5, Is 43:7, Rom 2:7, Heb. 2:7). Jesus did not live his life in ease for his own pleasure. He lived and suffered for the glory that was to follow (1Pet. 1:11). Lady, you were created to give glory to God. When God puts you in subjection to a man whom he knows is going to cause you to suffer, it is with the understanding that you are obeying God by enduring the wrongful suffering. And when you suffer wrongfully, as unto the Lord, you bring great glory to God in heaven.

I agree that the Christian life is lived to bring glory to God and that all Christians are called to a life of suffering. We will have trials and tribulations in this life -- no doubt about it.

Yet while exhorting women to endure suffering in silence, Michael has not explained when a man has gone beyond his power. He is leaving women -- especially those who are suffering physical abuse -- in a confusing quandry. On the one hand, there is a "bright red line" out there somewhere but no one is sure just where it is. On the other hand, women are encouraged to endure their suffering in silence. In addition, he seems to indicate that as the "underling" it is not even the woman's place to know or determine when the man is obeying God's will.

Michael leaves too many unanswered questions and the resulting confusion can be very harmful to some women in abusive relationships.

What is his definition of "some abuse?"

What is the definition of "bright red line of criminal acts?"

Why is so much space devoted to the doctrine of "wrongful suffering in silence" but nothing on the definition of "wrongful abuse of authority?"

How much physical violence does it take for a husband to be subject to the state?

How will the state (or anyone) know a husband has gone beyond his sphere of authority with respect to domestic violence if the wife is encouraged to endure and suffer in silence?

If "the servant is not given the option of deciding that the master is not acting within the will of God and therefore should not be obeyed," then what is the point of discussing "when not to obey?"

Michael doesnt' say. Somehow in all the letters and counseling experiences that they have had, they could not provide one example of how to apply any of this advice with respect to domestic violence. The closest we come is Sunny and Ahmed in Chapter 13 -- the poorest choice of an example if there ever was one, as we noted in Part III.

To underscore the depth of confusion the Pearl's are creating, the section titled "Practical Examples" on page 266 starts with,

You may still be confused as to when you are to obey and when not.

No kidding! The "practical examples" address the topics of sodomy, cross-dressing, thievery, tax evasion, and church attendance. In two instances, thievery and sodomy, Michael does encourage a woman to bring in the police. He inexplicably ignores the subject of domestic violence.

Why is this? The Pearl's provide a clear answer on their website of how a woman can bring the authority of the state in for her (and the children's) protection and still reverence her husband without divorce. It should also be clearly stated in the book to avoid any confusion on the part of a woman who may be in that situation. Why is it missing?

On page 258, last paragraph, “This book would not be complete without addressing the subject of what a woman should do if she knows her husband is breaking the law of God and man, or that his sin may bring imprisonment to her, or that his sinful actions may bring death to her or the children … is there ever a time when a woman should disobey her husband? …Debi then gives it over to Mr. Pearl who goes over the spheres of authority and chain of command. On page 260 he specifically states this: “Only within the realm of authority that God has granted each entity, does he allow them to use or abuse that power without interfering. If any authority abuses its power beyond that which God has allowed, it becomes subject to a greater power – as when a husband physically assaults his wife and becomes subject to the power of the state.” (underline mine) Debi goes on to cover Esther’s and Abigail’s stories in scripture, pointing out how to deal with abusive men. These are pretty clear to me in how to handle physical assault (bringing in the authorities is an option given) and how to handle verbal abuse. Again, your argument is not valid because nothing is missing here.

One answer might be found in this stunning paragraph (The Bottom Line) on page 270, where Michael manages to further confuse, and perhaps contradict, the very clear advice he gives on their website. He writes,

If a wife has an attitude of rebellion, she can find a thousand different exceptions to obedience. But if a woman is really seeking God and asking for wisdom from on high, she will be able to discern the difference between her own controlling spirit and those rare instances that a husband may command outside his sphere of authority - requiring legal intervention. Women who threaten to "report them to the law," or women who refuse to answer the phone any way other than, "He is here, but will not talk," are rebellious. They will never make it to the hall of fame found in Hebrews 11, where Sara was listed, nor will they make it into a heavenly marriage here on earth. (emphasis in bold in original, emphasis in red is added.)

I agree a rebellious spirit is never good.

But now the Pearl's are heaping one more weight on an abused woman -- not only is her husband allowed some abuse of his power, not only does she not know where the "bright red line" of criminal acts is, not only is she supposed to endure "some abuse" in silence, not only is she supposed to withhold judgement as to when her husband has exceeded his authority -- she now must also check her motives before even thinking to call the police. And since she is well versed in the notion that she is by nature rebellious to her husband...well, on second thought, maybe she should just continue in silence and endure with a smile.

On the Pearl's website, Michael says that women can use the authority of the state as an effective deterrent to abuse or repeated battering. He even says that the wife is to inform her husband that she will go to the law. Michael indicated that a man can have control when he must and that the state can make it a must! Where's all that strong languague now?

On the website, Michael advocates using the law as an effective means of winning an abusive husband. But in the book he fails to even mention turning to the law for help in abusive situations for those women who do want to stick by their men. On page 270 Michael writes,

To those of you who are enduring verbal and physical abuse, we realize that statistically, you are likely to remain with your husband. It is therefore important that you understand how to speak and conduct yourself in a way that will maintain your physical and emotional safety and ultimately win your husband.

The focus is all on how a woman should conduct herself, but there is no mention of the authority of the state. Michael had the perfect opportunity right there to define the line of abuse clearly and provide a biblical solution that would exhort women to honor the Lord, their husbands, provide for their protection and that of any children, and properly appeal to the authority of the state.

This confusing message can be devastating to abused women who are looking to the Pearl's for their wisdom and guidance. The Pearl's are such direct people. They plainly speak their mind. Why are they so vague on this issue? Is a man allowed to hit his wife or not? And what is the wife to do in the face of domestic violence? Any book on submission must provide clear teaching on what is physical abuse and how to respond to it - Created to be His Help Meet does not.

Many have indicated that they have benefitted from Debi's book. That is wonderful. But this is not just about you and me. While we may put into practice a merry heart, other women may be risking their lives and those of their children while practicing the "doctrine of wrongful suffering in silence." Someone needs to give those women back their voices.

That won't happen as long as books like this are being printed, promoted, and sold.

That is a pretty strong statement and one that I believe is based on faulty thinking and circular arguments. You agree that the Pearls clearly define the abuse issue on their website, yet you say the book does not agree with the website. I say it does agree with the website and even makes things more clear with more examples. People do not tend to disagree with themselves. Therefore, you should look and see how they do agree as I hope I have pointed out earlier. You should look at the life and ministry of the authors.

These women’s voices have not been taken away. They have been instructed when to speak and when not to speak. Clearly they are to speak if they are suffering under anything immoral or illegal and that is clearly spelled out in this book. Clearly they are not to speak if they are merely suffering under a surly, hateful, scornful, unbelieving jerk. That is clearly laid out in the book. If you are advising women not to read it due to your own feelings of semantic inconsistencies, then I believe you are wrong. The purpose of this book was not so much to be semantically consistent, rather to share with other women the gloriousness of a changed heart by following God’s clearly defined commands.  What will happen if these books are being printed, promoted and sold and what is happening is that thousands of women’s lives will be and are being changed daily as they read and apply what they have read. There are now women who are loving their mere men. And these mere men are finally feeling reverenced instead of harassed, nagged, or pity-partied to death. God’s ways work – and when we work God’s ways, heavenly things happen. Will we always see change in all of our husbands? Probably not, but we will see that treasures are being added to the eternal treasure chests of women who have finally given up the control and finally decided to bow before the mighty Hand of God and do His bidding regarding their role as wives as is laid out clearly in His word, and as clearly exemplified in this book.

Debi Pearl revisited

Monday, August 22, 2005

I thought I might be all done writing about the book "Created to Be His Help Meet". I really wanted to be. But recent personal events and Sparrow's review and Kirsten's continual review have prompted me to post again. (See sidebar for the other four posts.)

There is an aspect to this book that troubled me from the beginning. That is, the book makes liberal use of personal letters to help make Debi's points. These letters are never shown in the original hand of the writer. We must believe that they are original and credible without documentation. Furthermore, there are huge assumptions made from the letters that Debi seems willing to accept to make her case. Something Debi once said was not wise to do.

As for using anonymous letters in their book, this is something very common in the writing industry and is done so as to be sensitive to the letter writer and not to embarrass or exploit them in any way. Debi has done here the honorable thing and left them anonymous. It is also very common that readers believe the writer when they say they have received thousands of letters and then produce a sampling of them. Most readers do not purchase a book to find out what is not credible about it; they read a book because they believe it to be credible. The reader usually assumes the author to be valid in his writings and reads the book with this position. Are you assuming that Mrs. Pearl is lying? Are you building your case in this particular point on a presupposition that the author is lying....what if the stories are true? What if Debi is not lying? It's a straw man argument. None of us have the authority to make that judgment. Most of the reviews I have read on this book have praised the validity and credibility of the writer, Mrs. Pearl. Their website, newsletter, and people around the globe portray the absolute credibility of the writer. To get into a credibility issue here is to delve into judgment not based on fact or personal integrity issues. This is a book written after many years of counseling and many years of letters received, therefore, it is only apt to insert these letters throughout the book. This brings the writing home to where we all live. And most readers appreciate writers who do just that. Nothing in-credible here.

In her May 1999 newsletter, Debi Pearl wrote in response to a mother who was having a conflict with her husband, (This was take from a hard copy of their newsletter, No Greater Joy. no link available)

"From many years of counseling I have learned to never take at face value the interpretation of just one member of a controversy. And with no more than the contents of just one letter, it is difficult to be certain in my interpretation of the situation, but to answer it is necessary to make some assumptions.

And yet throughout this book Debi does exactly that.

Of course. We all make assumptions of what the writer intends when we receive a letter. And when a letter writer is asking for advice, we answer with whatever information has been provided. It may not be all the information, but we answer to the best of our abilities. When counseling is done in person, it is only right to hear both sides of the story, but when letters come because one spouse would like help anonymously; the counselor has to work with what he has. I know this personally as I answer inquiries regularly in my position with The Old Schoolhouse magazine. Mrs. Pearl can only go by what she has in front of her from one party without knowing the other party’s story; therefore, she will give her advice based on that, and that is a normal practice everywhere. Nothing abnormal here. Mrs. Pearl says “to answer it is necessary to make some assumptions.” The only other option according to your argument would be to not answer the letter at all. That would be unprofessional to allow all letters to go unanswered, and contrary to scripture where we are to answer any man with a question, therefore, Mrs. Pearl answers based on the information she has received. Not one of us could do otherwise. No beef here.

One of the most grievious examples of this comes in Chapter 16 "To Love Their Husbands". It is in this chapter that Debi reminds us that it is a great sin not to be intimate with our husbands. Debi writes on page 164,

If you are not loving your man, you are in danger of blaspheming the word of God. - "to love their husbands." The Bible says, "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin" (James 4:17) Hopefully you just didn't realize that your lack of s*xual interest in your husband was sin, but now you know.

Debi is emphatic that there is no excuse that should prevent us from this aspect of being his help meet. Not even hormones or physical pain. From page 170,

Stop the excuses! Determine to find a way past your "excuses" and provide the pleasure your husband wants only from you.

The force of her beliefs comes in a very brief letter to Mr. Pearl from a real man named Mr. Miller. (I feel for all the Mrs. Miller's out there!) He writes to the Pearl's thinking he might need to castrate himself because his wife is not responding to his needs. The Pearl's response was,

The gravity of this wife's sin is staggering. She has NO FEAR of God Almighty. She has blasphemed the word of God with her selfishness, thinking only of her needs and not loving her husband. Never, never, never be guilty of such a grave sin. The husband needs to know that God says, The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband...Defraud ye not one the other...that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. (1 Cor. 7:4-5) God grants the marraige partner full acces to his
spouse's body for s*xual gratifiication. And remember, indifference is unwillingness.

Pretty strong words from a very short letter where only one side of the story is told. So much for her wisdom from years of counseling as stated earlier. Might the man have left out any details that would shed some light on the situation? It doesn't matter. On the basis of this one letter, the Pearl's have accused a woman of blasphemy and having no fear of God.

These letters are samples and represent a larger community of the same problem. This one letter represents many men with the same problem of a wife not wanting sexual relations or not caring about their husbands needs. Your beef is that only one side of the story is told before advice is given. The point of this book is to offer advice to real people with real needs and what better way to answer those needs than to answer the letters of real people.  The Pearls advice is to all women to never be guilty of the sin of defrauding one another and blaspheming the word of God. The Pearls did not “accuse” the woman of blasphemy and having no fear of God as you suggested. Not the Pearls, but the scripture accuses us thus: if we are not loving our husbands, the Word of God is being blasphemed (Titus 2) This is a consistent principle taught throughout the book and not merely in response to one man’s letter. The gist of the letter here is that the wife “does not care” This letter is a wake up call to all those wives who feel their body is their own and believe they have full power and authority over it. Scripture says otherwise as you stated above and it is scripture that “accuses” us. This wake up call needed to be made and was made in a valid way.

I agree that in general a woman should not withold from her husband. But the idea that this woman is guilty of blasphemy for refusing her husband is not necessarily true. And a prudent counselor would want more details before making such a strong accusation. But it fit with theology that Debi believes so reluctantly I let it go in my earlier reviews.

But I wondered, if the roles were reversed would Debi think the same about a man who refused his wife?

I thought that would just be a lingering unanswered question along with the others, until I came upon Debi's news website Created to be His Help Meet. In the section on testimonies, I came across a letter praising the book and the asking for wisdom for the very same situation only reversed. (Scroll down to the letter from Concerned Wife that is 7th from the bottom. This was editted for brevity and discreteness.)

What if my husband isn't interested in love making very much at all? We are both healthy, and I have my figure back after pregnancy. He doesn't want to make love; just cuddle and talk. (snip)

This is fine with me, but every time s*x is mentioned in your book, I think, "What is wrong?" Weeks can pass by without s*x, and my husband doesn't seem bothered by it at all. I am, though, just because I feel like something is missing in our marriage." ~ Concerned Wife

So will Debi respond with the same rebuke and accusation to the man that she did to the woman in the book? No. There is no mention of blasphemy or the man's lack of fear for God. Instead Debi blames it on hormones and tells him to take vitamins (phone number provided) and to fix steak!

"Dear Wife, your concern isn't nearly as uncommon as you might think. We have these suggestions: Your husband must have very low testosterone, because this
low of a s*x drive and lack of interest is not normal. Perhaps he would be willing to go to a doctor and have his testosterone levels checked. Red meat really boosts a man s*xual drive. Serve your husband red meat often. He also needs to take a very good vitamin/mineral/herb supplement that includes zinc.

"You should not feel bad at all going to him any time you need to, since he won't initiate anything very often. His body belongs to you, and yours to him. 'Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife' (1 Corinthians 7:3-4).

Citing the same scripture, they do not accuse the man of anything. Why the double standard? Why isn't the man guilty of blasphemy? Is it a sin or isn't it? Could the man be involved in another relationship? (Most often the reason.)

The answer is to the woman and for the woman. To include the man here would be poor counseling to the woman. She needed to know her part; not his. I agree that men’s responsibilities are left out of the book as well – that is clearly evident – it was written to the woman for the woman. Not as a book to the men or for the men. If men need to be counseled or have questions relating to marriage, they can watch the Pearls DVDs or videos on the man’s role in marriage. At this point, there isn’t a book out for the men. Is the book now not credible just because counsel to the men is left out or that the men's book is not out yet (if it's even being prepared)? That's NOT the point of the book. This has turned into a huge controversy based on stuff NOT in the book? That's backwards, faulty reasoning.

What is staggering is that Debi contradicts her own explanation in the book and gives the husband the benefit of the doubt but yet refuses to do the same for the wife. Why? Is God a respecter of persons? It doesn't appear that this "sin" is gender specific. It mentions that both the husband and the wife have a responsiblity to each other. So why the different answers?

Why the different answers? If this were a book about men and women and their separate roles in the marriage, the man’s responsibilities would certainly be explored and explained. As women are easily deceived, most would read the husband’s part and try to hold him to it, or worse, sulk over what an inferior man he is based on his unmet responsibilities.  No need to include counsel to men in a woman’s book (and written by a woman who needs not advise men) The Pearls are wise to separate the two. Again, this book is not for men. No different answers here – the first is a book to women so the answers are given to women and the advice for alleviating the problem is given to women. The second is a letter from a woman to a woman, therefore the answer is given to the woman as to what she can do practically to help in her situation. Again, nothing staggering here.

At this point, I would heartily agree with Jenefer Igarashi (senior editor of The Old Schoolhouse Magazine) in her posted comment: “Only God's Word is perfect. But I do not at all believe the book is dangerous, on the contrary I still heartily recommend it constantly and frequently. I feel that overall this book is highly beneficial and that if it is read in the spirit that it's written (how wives can bless their husbands by living as graceful servants of Christ), it will be a great blessing to those who read it.”

Deborah Wuehler, Devotional Editor, The Old Schoolhouse Magazine

From Rebekah (Pearl) Anast:

To whom it may concern:

I know many of the ladies whose letters are in this book. One in particular that has been pointed out is the girl "Sunny." She is a very good friend of mine, about my age. She lives near us with her husband and two children. She is a real person, and the story about her is very real. Her abuse is over. It is not even part of her emotional make-up anymore. It does not affect her smile, or her relationships. She and her husband are in love and rejoicing in their life together. Together they are busy ministering to others, and spreading the news about what God has done for them. In the past year she and her husband have been actively ministering to the couples that live near them. "Sunny" claims that their testimony and my Mom's book has saved lives and changed marriages all around them. She is a real person. Those who doubt the miraculous have never experienced the miraculous.

I believe that there is a deep root-reason for much of the negative controversy over CTBHH. I believe the negativism lies in a misunderstanding in the doctrine of salvation and sanctification. This is the "miraculous" that I mentioned above. Not only can Jesus save you from death and hell; he can save you from the results of abuse, shame, anger, and... everything you ask him to save you from. He can save you from the "wages" of sin. The results you would reap for your evil (the evil done to you, and the evil you've done to others) can be miraculously turned into a trophy proclaiming the wonderful grace of Jesus. The abortion, the illegitimate child, the sexual molestation, the physical beatings, by the grace of God can become a testimony that Jesus saves. SAVES. SAVES! He paid for it all. He may not save you the way you expect him to; but oh, his salvation is sweeter than you could ever imagine.

Rebekah Anast

From Debi Pearl:

The proof is in the pudding. But the pudding is in the kitchen of the Cook. Make your own pudding, tend your own garden, and reap your own fruit. We are busy loving people that need us; our husbands above all. To all you who love God, and see God in our ministry, focus on those things that are good. Spend your time loving people that need to be loved, ministering to your family and being thankful, joyful, and sweet.

Debi Pearl

• Post A Comment! • Send to a Friend!

Posted by

I have read all the reviews. Thank you Deborah and thank you to the Pearl's for responding. I will take the time to review them thoroughly and prayerfully. I will respond as necessary on my own blog. If there are errors in what I have said I will take the time to correct them. Where we agree I will point them out. Where there are still issues unanswered I will let people know.

There is one aspect I would like to comment on initially here. You state in this post that this is NOT a doctrinal book. Yet, Rebekah makes the closing statement that this "negativism" might be because of a a misunderstanding in the doctrine of salvation and sanctification. I believe this to be true as well. You cannot teach a book about submission and obedience to God without an understanding of the doctrine of salvation and sanctification. Rebekah obviously understands this. And that was the point of my first post. It is all about JESUS. This is inherently doctrinal. Jesus is the answer! So why is HE replaced with a merry heart as the first step to a happy marriage? JESUS gives us that merry heart. We cannot manufacture it or attain it without HIM.

Thank you Rebekah you understand better than most what is the critical issue here. Jesus is still the answer for the world and a troubled marriage. I am heartened to know that Rebekah and I agree that this is fundamental to talking about this issue of a marriage and being a Godly wife.

God Bless You all for taking the time to answer.

Edited by spunkyhomeschool on Sep. 19, 2005 at 4:42 AM

• Permanent Link

Posted by

Rebekah, this is a question for you and since it is not related to the review itself and based on comments here, I will ask... In the book, it states that Sunny was pregnant with her third when her husband tried to kill her. Yet you state she is a friend of yours with two children. Did she lose the baby? Or is there some other explanation for the discrepancy.

Edited by spunkyhomeschool on Sep. 19, 2005 at 5:43 AM

• Permanent Link

Posted by Rebekah (Pearl) Anast

Yes, the referrence to the "third child" was a textual error. Sunny was actually pregnant with her 2nd child, and has only had 2 children, although they desperately want a third.

Also, although I believe the root of this discussion is a doctrinal issue, what Deb says is true; Mom did not intend to write a doctrinal book, and neither she nor I feel it would be appropriate for us to debate doctrine. We feel we are to learn from our husbands at home. This does not exclude the necessity of doctrine showing through our understanding of a woman's place, and the necessity of an older woman teaching a younger woman how to be a good woman... That was a mouthful.
I also believe it is reasonable for a woman to share her faith, to talk about what Jesus has done for her. But to debate the finer points of doctrine woman to woman is a useless and unbiblical task, I believe. If your husband would like to ask Mike Pearl what he believes about sanctification and salvation, this would be the proper approach. I suggest he order the "Sin No More Series" or listen to the free Roman's audio download on the NGJ website. These two series might clear up some of the questions about Mom's doctrinal foundations in the CTBHH book.

• Permanent Link

Posted by Rebekah (Pearl) Anast

By and large this book is applicable to people that don't know Jesus. When we read response letters we don't find questions about doctrine; but we often receive comments like "we're Catholic and we want to order a case of books for our church" "We're Mormon, and this saved our marriage," "I gave this to my Nepalese neighbors and now they want to read more of your material..."

Ordinary, "undoctrinal" people are able to take what they understand of this book and successfully apply it to their marriages. They are able to put on a "worldy-merry-heart" and be happy enough to have a marriage that would classify as "heavenly" ((unusually good), Mom does use that word the way we Southerners frequently use it in conversation) and is an object of amazement to all their friends and relatives. She wrote it as simply as she could, only alluding to doctrine, teaching the principles of marriage and wifehood primarily. God is faithful to give good things to those that obey His word, even if they don't know Him yet.
Our objective, of course, is to teach people about Jesus Christ. However, child training, and husband and wife relationships are central issues in everyone's life, and by meeting these needs, opportunities arise by the hundreds to present Christ.
I think some of the amazement you may feel over the stories or the presentation of the stories and letters probably stems from a belief that we all have a sinful nature and therefore our natural reactions cannot be good. Again, I suggest you listen to the Sin No More Series. This will absolutely answer these questions. Not that you will agree ;-) But you will understand.

Gotta go...

Rebekah

• Permanent Link

Posted by spunkyhomeschool

How old are the children today? And are there any other factual errors in the story that we would need to know? Did she at one point live near your parents and move to where you now reside?

Isn't part of an older woman teaching a younger woman how to be "good" teaching her about the redemption in Christ. Can one be "good" apart from Christ? I think not. And any book that attempts to teach a woman how to be good without salvation in Christ FIRST is teaching something different than what I read in my Bible.

I will leave this discussion at this point. And save the rest of my resonse when I can go over it all thoroughly.

• Permanent Link

Posted by

I have a problem with Spunky's 2 nd comment where she asks about the "inconsistency" in beka's response about Sunny and the number of Sunny's children. There seems to be only two reasons to bring this up
1) She is simply a bit nosy about personal information about Sunny's family --in which case I would say, the number of Sunny's kids has utterly nothing to do with the review of the book, nor is it anybody's business to know if the woman lost a child, gave the kid up for adoption, or anything else. I don't know why it would even be asked.., unless
2) Spunky is trying to infer that Beka is a liar, which I really really hope is NOT the case.
If one would say "that the inconsistency in Beka's response perhaps could cause confusion" this would also fall flat. Let's stick to the issues of the rebuttal and assume that the author and her dauther are telling the truth.

Edited by JenIG on Sep. 19, 2005 at 8:26 AM

• Permanent Link

Posted by JenIG

Did you read her entire comment, Beka wrote:

"She wrote it as simply as she could, only alluding to doctrine, teaching the principles of marriage and wifehood primarily. God is faithful to give good things to those that obey His word, even if they don't know Him yet.
Our objective, of course, is to teach people about Jesus Christ. However, child training, and husband and wife relationships are central issues in everyone's life, and by meeting these needs, opportunities arise by the hundreds to present Christ"

• Permanent Link

Posted by devdoordeborah

Thanks for responding Spunky, Rebekah, Jen and Dalyn. The whole purpose of my comments was to show the validity of the CTBHHM book, the error of the arguments being spread around, and to let others know that The Old Schoolhouse supports the Pearls and their ministry. We are hoping this will help answer those who are questioning our official position and to end any controversary. I am convicted by what Debi and Rebekah referrred to concerning being busy about loving others (especially those in our own kitchen) and sharing Jesus Christ with those who are in need. Let's get back to loving our neighbors, husbands and children now. Excuse me while I go stir the pudding ... May His Face Shine Upon You, Deborah

• Permanent Link

Posted by sparrow

This is the "Official TOS review"? Where's the review? This appears to me to be nothing but a rebuttal of Spunky's opinions.

Spunky did a concerned review on a popular book on her own blog. Book reviews are done all the time in all sorts of forums and don't usually merit this kind of response. There is a serious lack of professionalism and courtesy by the TOS staff here. Even among Christians there is room for dissenting opinion.

As Dalyn said in her incredibly rude and hypocritical comment above:

"This whole thing makes us all look bad. It's an embarrassmentI"

Yes, it does.

• Permanent Link

Posted by Anonymous

I don't think it's an attack on Spunky. Good gravy, Spunky's been practically begging someone to give an honest and thorough rebuttal to her posts for weeks now. Someone finally does--yay--but let's not be hasty and call it an "attack" just because the rebuttal disagrees with most of Spunky's points. (I disagree with most of Spunky's points, too, but I'm not attacking her). Let's be grown up's PULEEZ. *grin*

Great post and thanks for taking the time to write it. I've been wanting to do something similar, but to be honest...I've just felt overwhelmed at the thought of it, because it doesn't really matter what gets said--I think both sides will still continue to disagree. And I have five small children at home and a hunky husband...I'm already overwhelmed with work-to-do as it is, rather than take on the impossible task of trying to spend hours in rebuttal! lol...

I agree with others--the font and the colors make this very difficult to read. It's such a good piece...you think the readability could get "fixed?"

Also, I hardly think it's "unprofesional" of TOS to do this. Having an opinion and politely stating it is NOT unprofessional, for goodness sake, and CALLING someone unprofessional simply because you don't LIKE the opinion is bordering on the ridiculous.

Debi and Rebekkah, I'm so glad you both stepped in and shared. That was needed, especially the words about Sunny. (Don't know how many times I've heard that entire story get tossed off into the, "they just made it up" trashcan, or, even better, "she's probably been beated to death long ago")... Argh!


My very strong-opinioned self will be leaving now... *grins*

Molly
http://www.ChoosingHome.com
http://threepennies.blogdrive.com

PS--Debi, my friends and I love the book. Honestly, I've never read a better book for women anywhere. Praise the Lord for His work!!!

• Permanent Link

Posted by sparrow

Sorry Molly, but I disagree. If this was a personal rebuttal of Spunky's opinions by a fellow blogger, that is one thing; but the title of this post is "Official TOS Review" and it is made perfectly clear that it is fully endorsed by the entire staff. Since this post claims to be a review of the book from the TOS organization, it should be a review of the book and not just an opportunity to argue against Spunky's thoughts. I find the emotionalism and defensiveness in this post to be unprofessional, not the dissenting opinion.

• Permanent Link

Posted by BiblicalWomanhood

I'm cross-posting this here because God prompted me to share it...

Spunky, I just want to encourage you to be careful not to take this too far. You've said what you've said. If you believe it, leave it and let others say what they may. I feel you started out trying to speak what you felt was the truth and now it has turned into this whole big debaucle that I worry is going to spin out of control and cause some big rifts in relationships.

If people disagree with you, let them disagree and leave it at that. Don't feel a need to defend what you said, if you believe it to be the truth.

Ladies, I think we are missing the whole boat here and this is getting way out of hand in all respects. Satan would love to use anything to cause division.

Let's focus on serving and honoring our husbands and being the help meets to them that the Lord would have us to be. Maybe that means needing to take a break and get off of our computers for awhile. I don't know about you, but I think most of us don't have time for a huge debate on this issue, and I don't think that our husbands would appreciate it either. My husband would prefer a nice dinner and a clean house.

Spunky, I love and respect you and, although I disagree with you on this, I have no hard feelings. I think you had good motives for why you said what you said. I just wanted to encourage you not to feel like you need to defend yourself. Instead, let's focus on building others up and encouraging women in their roles as Godly wives and mothers!

Crystal P

• Permanent Link

Posted by devdoordeborah

Hi everyone - thanks for your comments. I have obviously changed the template so that it would be easier to read. Hope everyone's eyes are back to normal now :)

I have also posted the "Official Review" I did of the book which was printed in the TOS magazine.

Some of you are right in saying that my three posts above were not a "review" rather they are an answer to spunkyhomeschool's questions/comments that she posted on her blog. The reason we had to address this is because TOS supports the Pearls and their ministry and we wanted to make that known. I have changed the title of those to reflect that.

Let me know if there is anything else I can clear up. Thanks!

• Permanent Link

Posted by cappuccinosmom

Thank you so much for this response to Spunky's review. I was getting rather depressed reading the review, and wondering if perhaps I was reading an entirely different book. (It's the same feeling I get when people go on about how awful Dr. Laura is, and I wonder if there's another Dr. Laura because the one I listen to doesn't say any of the things they say she says!)

And I'm so glad to see both Debi and Rebekah adding thier own words. I admire you both and I wish you had the time to publish the newsletter every month so that I could get more of your wonderful writing! <smile>
Your book has changed me and changed my marriage--well, God has done the changing, but your book certainly provided the impetus. I didn't have a "lightbulb" moment, and the change wasn't instantaneous. But the atmosphere in my home has changed completely, and I'm so happy. And my normally stubborn, easily-irritated, critical husband has loosened up, started looking for ways to bless me, and even apologized for several comments he made! Something good is going on here!

• Permanent Link

Posted by Anonymous

to be a part of this community. It is no different here than elsewhere. Women going about being women the wordly way. Truly it is a sad day to see so many names, websites and blog addresses associated with this muck and mire to where I will no longer frequent. I have an opinion, but will never use any online vehicle to vent it. Here is one more(blog) to take off the list:-(

• Permanent Link

Posted by gracefuljourney

That is much easier on the eyes!

I am still confused though. You said:

"Some of you are right in saying that my three posts above were not a "review" rather they are an answer to spunkyhomeschool's questions/comments that she posted on her blog. The reason we had to address this is because TOS supports the Pearls and their ministry and we wanted to make that known.
I have changed the title of those to reflect that."

Is Spunky employed by TOS? If so, I can see why TOS would feel the need to clarify their position about the Pearl's ministry. However, I don't believe a point by point rebuttal is necessary. Just state your support and leave it at that.
If Spunky is not emplyed by TOS, I certainly cannot see the need to clarify your position at all. No more so than you would need to clarify that position if I wrote a similar review.

Everyone will have a different reaction and opinion of this book ... all books for that matter. Spunky is entitled to state her concerns about this book just as we all are entitled to state our concerns about any book. There are many who agree with Spunky. There are many who agree with TOS. It IS a matter of perspective. Here is something that I wrote, ironically enough, in response to a debate about To Train Up a Child:

"We teachers - perhaps all human beings - are in the grip of an
astonishing delusion. We think that we can take a picture, a
structure, a working model of something, constructed in our minds out
of long experience and familiarity, and by turning that model into a
string of words, transplant it whole into the mind of someone else.
Perhaps once in a thousand times, when the explanation is
extraordinary good, and the listener extraordinary experienced and
skillful at turning word strings into non-verbal reality, and when
the explainer and listener share in common many of the experiences
being talked about, the process may work, and some real meaning may
be communicated.

Most of the time, explaining does not increase understanding, and may
even lessen it."

John Holt, (1923-1985) American Educator
How Children Learn

This quote came through today on an email discussion group to which I belong. It was such an appropriate quote at such an appropriate time. I have been pondering something and have been trying formulate it in my head so that I could post about it . . .

Sometimes we think that a book is an inanimate object. Just lying there waiting to be read and digested. We forget that a living person wrote the book. A person with family history, life experiences, worldview and personality with with to present ideas.. Then another living person comes along and reads the book and this person has family history, life experiences, worldview and personality with which to interpret the ideas in the book. This happens not only in written books but in magazines, news papers, tv shows, online message boards. We read and interpret things after having run them through the filters in our lives. That is why there can always be at least two (and usually many) opinions about an idea that is presented in whatever form of media."

Personally, I would feel more comfortable if this debate would end now. I wish that this wasn't being presented as a TOS official response. I don't believe that TOS needs to respond officially. I am still not sure what to do with the knowledge that TOS is such strong supporters of the Pearls. I know that several bloggers at HSB have left because of it. I choose to stay and present my life as God leads me and pray that He will use my stumbling words as He will.

In His Grace,
Cynthia

• Permanent Link

Posted by Anonymous

Hi Deborah - your replies are still difficult to read. The italics are hard on the eyes, as is so much bold type. Could you not put it in normal font and make a note where each reply begins and ends?

There is an awful comment left by some-one which is really personal about Spunky and quite accusatory - and I note that you have no response to it. Are you in tacit agreement with that comment?

Regarding some of the info here - doctrine is not something separate from counsel. Counsel is very much based on and informed by one's doctrine. It's really inaccurate to try and claim something is not doctrinal but is just giving counsel when those two things are intertwined. For example you write:

"Debi tells us that her goal for this book is to show women how to be true help meets. And this goal she fully meets in the book. Her goal was not to teach or preach doctrine whether it be repentance, salvation or sanctification. If she wanted to include all of these doctrines, she would have stated that and written about them."

The very fact that a woman is created to be a help-meet is doctrinal - it is doctrine. And how one does that will be shaped of course by the work of the Holy Spirit - which includes one's theology and doctrine. If you write a book on how to be true help-meets then obviously you are teaching and expounding a doctrine. It's not accurate to try and split doctrine off as if it was something separate. And the other doctrinal matters you refer to will be part of that. You seem to say in your responses that it's a book partly about repentance - but not about a doctrine of repentance. If it's about repentance, which it is in part, then it is including doctrine about repentance. It is Debi Pearl's doctrine - her interpretation of belief and practice. I don't agree that you can somehow remove doctrine when doctrine is what one believes and expounds. I agree it is not a full treatise on particular doctrines - but it is not devoid of those doctrines either.

Further on you write:
"That being the case, we would suppose that the book would be full of situations of those women needing counseling along with Debi’s responses (which is indeed what we find) – not doctrine to be taught, but counsel on the practical application of the biblical principles of submission and reverence to husbands which includes many different scenarios."

This is an unnecessary split in terminology I think. Underlying any counsel will be doctrinal presuppositions. We all have doctrine upon which we base our approaches - whether we've been Christians for one day or Christians for 70 years we have beliefs upon which we act. If a woman is delivering counsel on a topic which is in itself a doctrinal belief (a woman should be a help-meet) then her counsel will be based upon her doctrine.

You say much the same thing when you say:
"Debi shows throughout the book how a marriage can be made better even in the midst of the most trying of circumstances – by having an eternal perspective and taking responsibility for what the Bible teaches us women to do (no matter how we feel) and actually putting those things into practice whether or not the husband is saved. "

This is a clear description of some-one expounding doctrine - if not then the book would be one sentence long. But when some-one is showing what women should do and bases it on "taking responsibility for what the bible teaches" then it is quite obviously doctrinally based.

In view of that, Spunky's response is not off the mark in bringing doctrinal considerations to bear upon a work that is itself doctrinal.

In your own responses you point out that "Debi is writing to “younger women” with the intent of building on already known theology". Yet Rebekah responds in the comments section with, "By and large this book is applicable to people that don't know Jesus. When we read response letters we don't find questions about doctrine; but we often receive comments like "we're Catholic and we want to order a case of books for our church" "We're Mormon, and this saved our marriage," "I gave this to my Nepalese neighbors and now they want to read more of your material...
Ordinary, "undoctrinal" people are able to take what they understand of this book and successfully apply it to their marriages. They are able to put on a "worldy-merry-heart" and be happy enough to have a marriage that would classify as "heavenly" ((unusually good), Mom does use that word the way we Southerners frequently use it in conversation) and is an object of amazement to all their friends and relatives. She wrote it as simply as she could, only alluding to doctrine, teaching the principles of marriage and wifehood primarily. "

There appears to be a very fundamental misunderstanding here not only on who the book is designed for, but on how doctrine is part of theology, and what doctrine actually is.
You are saying the book has the intent of building on already known therology, while Rebekah is saying it is by and large applicable to people who don't know Jesus.
The second misunderstanding regards "ordinary undoctrinal people". If that is referring to Christians then it is incorrect. Everyone has doctrine - some may have simpler doctrine than others, but all of us who are in Christ have our beliefs based on knowing Him and the scriptures as we understand them. There are no "undoctrinal" Christians - there are different doctrines and different of beliefs and understanding as we grow.
When Rebekah says:
"She wrote it as simply as she could, only alluding to doctrine, teaching the principles of marriage and wifehood primarily.",
this is confused. Teaching Christian principles of marriage and wifehood is teaching doctrine.
As an example - when I tell a non-Christian that foriveness of sin has been made possible because Jesus died on the cross and took the sins of the world so that we may have a new start through him - I'm evangelising - and my doctrine is part of what I'm communicating. That's the point I am making and I raise it because one of your key objections to Spunky's reviews seem to hinge on an artificial splitting off of doctrine. I don't see how you can do that really.

I also think that Rebekah's comment has brought into the discussion another serious consideration - that of external works that are not accompanied by the inner regenerative work of the Holy Spirit. If, as her comment indicates, a woman can apply this teacing without being in relationship with Jesus Christ - if it can be applied externally regardless of one's lack of justification and redemption - then it is a self-help book which cannot truly teach on the fullness of a wife's role as true fulfillment comes from one's standing in Christ and newness of heart by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit. So regarding the book - one has a book that is doctrinal on the one hand but not requiring the very basis for truly accomplising the spirit of the doctrine on the other. I would think that a woman would be in Christ, and thus empowered by Him, as it is He who works in us to do his will and good pleasure. If the book is for those who do not have that empowerment then it is a book about works apart from Christ. Such works are of no eternal value according to the scriptures.

Thanks,
Catez

• Permanent Link

Posted by Anonymous

Sorry - I didn't sign off with my whole name. Catez Stevens
http://allthings2all.blogspot.com

• Permanent Link

Posted by lazearbeam

Actually this saddens me. For one thing when someone writes a book, then it is in the public forum and open for review - whether that review be negative or positive. What I have seen from those that are enthusiastic about this book is that no negative reviews are allowed and the person that does review it negatively is put down for their review. The review went so far here as to come close to accusing Spunky of being a "false accuser." Then one of the commentors accused her of slander. I have not seen her guilty of that and find that to be quite a strong accusation. If we cannot review a book negatively without getting labeled with being a slanderer, a Jezebel and a multitude of other terms designed to discredit, then there is not room for growth in the body of Messiah. We are just to conform and make sure we bow down to the group's idols. I think Spunky has been very gracious in her response here. I have seen her character to be such and I'm sure she is very seriously looking at all of this and seeking her Shepherd for what He wants to teach her through it.
Now go ahead and discredit me for I am twice married when my "christian" husband and a "leader" in the church left me and my 5 children for the "gay" life. According to some in the "church" I am adulterous for having married again and then of all things - an ex-gay. But you cannot steal my testimony from me for it is not mine, but His. I know my Shepherd's voice and I know the day He told me that my first husband was losing all the treasures that He had given him. I learned a lot through that suffering and I learned submission and to honor my husband through my first marriage. My present husband reaps from that and we are blessed in our relationship and work as a team.
I hope that each here will seek our Father for His heart in all of this and for sure be Bereans and study the scriptures. But when you do that start at the beginning with Genesis 1:1 and go all the way through. It does take the big picture and He hasn't wasted His breath on any of it.
Love and shalom,
Serena

• Permanent Link

Posted by Anonymous

This is Molly again...


Personally, I think a lot of things are being read into the comments that aren't there... That's the real pain of a "typed-print" relationship...it's hard to tell a person's tone.

I mean, I can say,
"I don't care for that,"
in a nonchalant, grin-filled voice, and yet I can say the same exact words (same, exact, words) in a FURIOUS tone, a spite-filled look, and venom spewing.

Does that make sense?

Because I think that has a lot to do with why some women got a lot of good stuff out of the book, and others think it's terrible. Judging from what some people think about the Pearls (good and bad), I think it makes all the difference in how one reads the "tone," and I also think it makes ALL the difference in how one reads the blog reviews, AND I also think it makes all the difference in how one reads these very comments.

I mean, I'm hearing here how Spunky is being openly reviled...and so I go back and read the comments (twice!) and I just don't see it! Why? Perhaps because I'm assuming that the commenters aren't yelling or spewing...I'm assuming that they are just talking and throwing out thoughts around a table with cups of tea/coffee in hand. I know that's how my thoughts were intended to be read. Just nonchalant commenting... But I guess if a person is assuming I'm flaming mad, then they might read me a little differently.

...Just like if a person assumes Debi is a bossy, haughty, evil gal, they might really have a problem with her book. Whereas if a person assumes Debi is God-loving, fun to be around, and desirous to reach out and help the young wife, then...shoot, they might read THAT into her book. ...Hey, whaddya know, that's what *I* read into her book! *grins*


As for the doctrinal differences... Uh...yeah... Have you ever read ANY person that you agree with doctrinally 100%? I am not sure that I have. Don't make the mistake of thinking if *you* wrote a book on marriage, there wouldn't be a big group of people who had major problems with it!

...Well, except for me, right, since if *I* wrote a book, my doctrinal beliefs would be totally correct, infallible, and the book would be PERFECT in each and every way. Because the thoughts contained would be mine, as I see them in the Lord, and I'm the only one on the planet who is right. Right? (You see my point, I imagine).

To me, a person may not agree with Debi. Fine. But picking through the book with a lice-comb, actively looking for any and every little thing one could have a problem with, openly insinuating that the Pearls were making up the letters, openly and actively wondering what became of Sunny (assuming that Debi's "terribly-faulty" advice only "worked" for a little while and then Sunny and children were beat to death, etc), openly insinuating and laughing about how Debi probably is a battered wife, and on and on and on...

All these things and more happened on the blogs that posted negative reviews, either in the actual review or in the Comments boxes (Spunky and Keer's, in particular, since those were the main two I read). In fact, it really surprised me how some particularly nasty comments (openly reviling the Pearls) were left up AND continued to be commented on! But that's somehow okay... Somehow it's okay to say that the book is "unBiblical," while mocking and reviling a sister in Christ who wrote it with the best of intentions. (Will someone explain to me how that works?).

So it's okay to disagree with Debi, but then someone replies to Spunky's posts and now...it's all of a sudden Spunky who is being *attacked?* So we can disagree with Debi and it's NOT an attack, but if we disagree with Spunky, it IS an attack?

Do you gals see how CRAZY this all is???

There is no attack. It's just that Spunky has an opinion, and so does the leadership of TOS. We can disagree, and it's OKAY.

Just imagine you are sitting around a coffee table talking rationally (can we gals do that--heeheehee) with everyone, and it will really help. That's what I always do in these matters. Realize that when you make snide comments about how Debi probably made up the letters in the book, that mysterious "Debi" is actually a real person on the other side of the coffee table.

When I disagree with Spunky, I try to do so assuming that Spunky is on the other side of the coffee table from me. So I try to speak in a way that I would JUST AS IF she was sitting right there. I want to express my thoughts, yes, but I want to do so in a way that I would talk to a person--frank, yes, but politely and with the assumption that my friend over there has good intentions. When I read Spunky's disagreements (with me), I assume the same from her.

That's probably a big reason why I can disagree with her SO heartily over this particular area, and yet still appreciate her so much! *grins* We are on the SAME TEAM. Can't forget that part, or the enemy wins while we both lose.

Long ramble is over (can you tell I just put the children to bed and had a few spare minutes on my hands??? lol)...

Love in Him,
Molly
www.ChoosingHome.com
http://threepennies.blogdrive.com

• Permanent Link

Posted by sparrow

Molly,

I'm not sure how you are missing this, but here is the comment (from the first post) that I consider an attack on Spunky:

"Posted by Dalyn
I'm so glad you have taken the time to step by step go through spunky's "review" (which, by the way, it obviously is NOT) and point out her faulty arguments, accusations, and slander. I have wanted to myself, but lack the time to do a thorough job right now. It needed to be done!

After reading all of her so-called reviews, and the comments she and others make on her blog-(that's another issue- she states at the begining she will delete any comments that get personal with the Pearls and aren't just about the review of the book itself, and she did NOT stick to that, and as a matter of fact uses her own comments to cast doubt on the integrity of their ministry and persons, not just that one book.) I am of the opinion that she is divisive and taking opportunity to "bite and devour" fellow believers. It sickens me to know that I even wasted my time bothering to read her slander, for if none of us gave her the forum to be poisonous to another christian sister's ministry (Debi Pearl) then she might stop. I see that the more attention this whole thing has gotten, the more argumentative spunky gets. I think she enjoys the attention a little too much. If we ignore her maybe she will stop. Ick.

It's no longer just about those of us who appreciate the loving ministry of the Pearls; I think we should stop and recognize that spunky's slander is wrong-no matter what direction it's aimed at. She is tearing down a ministry, arguing in a public forum over even the smallest issues (such as the number of children Sunny had!?), casting doubt on the honesty and integrity of a christian woman who loves the Lord (Debi Pearl) and inviting others to do so with her. (Deceit is in the heart of them that imagine evil: but to the counsellers of peace is joy. Pr. 12:20)

This whole thing makes us all look bad. It's an embarrassment. Spunky has been admonished, but refuses to give up her campaign. "He loveth transgression that loveth strife: and he that exalteth his gate seeketh destruction." Pr. 17:19

Again, thank you for doing this- and letting others know that TOS does not endorse the malicious tearing down of ministries- NGJ or otherwise."

~ From my reading of Spunky's review (and I will reread it tomorrow to verify), she continually cautioned her commenters to not disparage the Pearls.

The negative comments have gone both ways - not just towards the Pearls. Both sides are wrong when they engage in tearing down.

• Permanent Link

Posted by Anonymous

Ahhhh...
I see what you were talking about now.
I was referring to teh comments on THIS particular section. I didn't realize that anyone had commented on the other ones, actually. Okay, it's all starting to make a little more sense now!
lol...

• Permanent Link

Posted by Dalyn

Ladies, this whole thing was sad. I re-read it all- including the comments (yes- including mine) and I have to say that I wrote what I think, but there is much wisdom in not saying (or typing!) everything one thinks. I stand by what I said, I only wish I had said it without such harshness and had respect toward spunky. My apologies for offending spunky and her friends.I am sorry for being rude and ugly. I still think she was wrong, but see that I was too, in my attitude about what she was saying. I do think that there is an unbalance here- some who have taken sides in this with spunky seem to feel free to be ugly, cast doubts on other's integrity and overlook insults and double standards. I decided that if other's were doing this, then perhaps I should examine my own comments more closely and my heart when writing them.
Please don't continue to debate over my part in this- because I have asked pardon and hope I should get it from fellow christians. I am done with this and letting it rest. I am encouraged by the Pearl's writing, and will cntinue to enjoy that ministry, but will no longer feel I need defend their honor, when the graciousness of Debi and Rebecca speak volumes more than my "in your face" manner.
Point taken, Debi, I will be in my kitchen, stirring some puddin'. (made with goat's milk, of course!)

• Permanent Link

Posted by sparrow

No matter how we feel about this book, the negative comments on BOTH sides are wrong. Thank you for taking a step towards reconciliation. God bless and enjoy your goat milk pudding! I'll be stirring some of my own today.

• Permanent Link

Posted by spunkyhomeschool

Dalyn I forgive you and hold nothing against you. I too ask your forgiveness and anyone else if you saw a harshness or negativity in what I wrote. I have no agenda against the Pearls or their ministry.

None was intended in my review but this is an imperfect medium and my writing is not perfect as well. My only intention for asking the number of children is because there are occassions where an abusive spouse causes a miscarriage and/or /murder. (Remember Laci Peterson) It seemed odd that the book said three and Rebekah said there were two. I did not intend to accuse anyone of lying nor did I assume she was. But just to accurately know what the facts were. It now appears that this was missed in the editing of the book and there was not a third child.

I will look again at what I wrote and if there needs to be changes to the review in light of what has been said I will make them and note that I have done so.

For those who may have been wondering what the relationship is between me and The Old Schoolhouse it is stronger than ever. I am still an independent contractor hired by TOS to help with this site and write for the magazine. That has not changed.

We have posted a joint statement on our blogs and you can read it here at

http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/spunkyhomeschool/27481/

a similar post is here at JenIg's site

http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/jenig

• Permanent Link

Posted by Anonymous

Hi Molly,
I'm going to respond to some of what you've said:
"Judging from what some people think about the Pearls (good and bad), I think it makes all the difference in how one reads the "tone," and I also think it makes ALL the difference in how one reads the blog reviews, AND I also think it makes all the difference in how one reads these very comments."

This seems to continually be the issue for you - what you think of the Pearls, and I think you have projected it onto the discussion. For me it is not about the Pearls - it is about ideas presented in writing. Reading Spunky's reviews I see she takes that approach also - she engages the ideas and doctrine. I have not yet seen you do that. Your Open Letter to the Pearls was testimonial rather than looking at the material with a biblical analysis. I would encourage you to see that not everyone is making this personal about the Pearls.I'm raising this because I see it as being off the real issues.

In my previous comment I have raised some points which are important. Not the least of those is that while Deborah says the book is designed to build on already existing theology, Rebekah says it is designed for people who do not know Jesus. Which is it? The question needs answering as it directly bears on the doctrinal content of the book, and on whether it is designed to facilitate inner transformation or is for external application only.

I've also pointed out that there appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding on what doctrine is. These are biblical issues which beg answers. There is nothing "personal" about them - and rather than making it about she said and they said in other people's comment boxes, let's look biblically and carefully at what has been presented.

I read Spunky's reviews, which by the way have been reproduced entirely here as an "official" response by a magazine that did not consider basic copyright, and all the comments. A couple of people were out of line - Spunky addressed that. However - those commenters are not the issue. Making it about that, when this isn't even her blog, is a red herring.

The "reviews" here unfortunately do have inadequacies. The review of the book itself was added after the responses to Spunky's posts - and is a testimonial rather than a real review. It would be appropriate as an inside cover endorsement of a book but does not review the book substantively. If I had time I could go through some of the reponses from Deborah - and I may. As I've already said, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what doctrine is to start with that needs to be looked at.

Defining the purpose of a book, which as yet is not clear for this book, does not override the need for biblically sound content. The content needs to be weighed biblically - not emotively and not in side-tracked fashion on irrelevancies such as who likes the Pearl's personally or who said what in the comments section on another blog. If a reviewer has a personal connection with an author that should be declared and made known also. I do not know if that is the case here, although there are statements included form the author and her daughter which make Deborah's responses appear not to be an independent review. It is simply standard practice to declare any connection to an author and it assists the reader in knowing that the review is not independent.

Regarding the "official" position - I would expect a magazine to be aware of copyright. If a magazine reproduced three of my posts without permisssion they would definitely hear from me. Spunky has been gracious on that issue. However considering that this is an official position from a magazine I would expect better. It is within law to link to the post and provide an excerpt. To completely reproduce some-one posts is incorrect - including reproducing them on a blog. One can still respond to some-one without taking all their work and reproducing it. And yes, that is important - and even more so when a magazine is being officially represented.

What is missing is a response from the author. There is a short comment included from the author here but it does not address any of the biblical concerns. Instead there are two people speaking on the author's behalf, and going beyond reviewing the book to stating the author's intent. Those two statements of intent contradict each other.

These are issues which need to be looked at. I do not know the TOS contributors, but from these posts I now have questions regarding how they have used another persons material and whether they are committed to reviews which are independent.

Catez Stevens
http://allthings2all.blogspot.com

• Permanent Link

Posted by Anonymous

Catez,

I actually pretty much agree with your position about doctrine. Doctrine means "truth," and what we define as truth will color just about everything we do practically. I don't really agree with the Pearls that women should not discuss doctrine. (Did I ever say that I agreed with the Pearls on everything they think? Did they ever say they agree with ME? *grins*)...

I don't have to agree doctrinally on every front with a writer in order to get a LOT out of their thoughts. In fact, I've never read a book or met a person that has IDENTICAL doctrinal beliefs with me (nor do I expect to, but I'm willing to be surprised). :o)

All I was trying to point out is that graciousness seems to be lacking a lot in the responses to Debi. Instead of treating her as a sister who has a lot to offer (since she's still most-happily married and has five great children praising her in the gates, something NOT very common these days), many seem to be treating her as if she's an enemy out to decieve.

As for debating the book point by aching point, I just cannot do it. I'm in over my eyeballs with responsibilities, most of them in Real Life and not in cyberspace, and just don't have the ability to even try, much as I'd like to. But please don't suggest that it's because I'm emotional or afraid to get into doctrine. If you only knew me better, you'd know that nothing could be farther from the truth (and Molly's friends all nod their heads vigorously at this point--harhar)... :o)

(I saw your negative review of TTUAC, btw, a little while back, and I'm guessing you are not too awful fond of the Pearl's opinions on many matters, and therefore much more likely to view her as an enemy of the truth. Am I totally wrong there, or are you coming at this particular book review without any preconcieved opinions?)...

With love,
Molly

• Permanent Link

Posted by underthesky

You wrote: "All I was trying to point out is that graciousness seems to be lacking a lot in the responses to Debi."

but that cannot be said of Spunky. She was very respectful and brought up legitimate questions that have yet to be addressed by the Pearls themselves. That is what is most disappointing to me. It is simply impossible to address the wife's proper role without bringing up Scripture. They claim it is not a book on theology, but there is theology in it. You cannot separate the two.

Before you think I am "anti-Peral" - I am not. I have gone to bat for them several times on my own blog. I think there are certain parts of this book though, that I think are problematic.

Warmly,
Kate

• Permanent Link

Posted by Anonymous

"I saw your negative review of TTUAC, btw, a little while back, and I'm guessing you are not too awful fond of the Pearl's opinions on many matters, and therefore much more likely to view her as an enemy of the truth. Am I totally wrong there, or are you coming at this particular book review without any preconcieved opinions?)... "

Molly that is way out of line. I independently reviewed a book. I have never said I view Debi Pearl as enemy of the truth. You are out of order. Instead of responding to the biblical issues you have again been personal - and are now putting forward speculative opinions designed to be discrediting. You say you don't have time to address the real issues but you have time to respond frequently on posts about the Pearl's material. I'm not impressed with the "grin" type comments - this is not an adequate response from you.

There are issues concerning the intent of the book which are now confused. There are issues concerning whether or not the review here is independent. And in Spunky's reviews there are doctrinal issues.

• Permanent Link

Posted by Anonymous

Forgot to sign my comment above. I would add that it would be appropriate to respond to the valid concerns rather than simply putting forward inferences and smears.
Catez Stevens
http://allthings2all.blogspot.com

• Permanent Link

Posted by Anonymous

My husband's computer in his office area is always on, and since I'm often nursing a babe, I have little snatches of time that I use to sit down and check this conversation out. I'm usually not online HALF this much! I'm also an extremely fast typist and reader. Deep studious thought and the time it takes to carefully write it all out, however, is not where I'm at right now. Especially when it would do next to nothing. I'm allergic to mindlessly wasting my time. [achoo!]

Catez, you really misread what I was saying. No smears intended, just a valid question that I think was worth asking. Still do, actually, but you don't have to answer it.

I'm bowing out of the discussion at this point, though perhaps I'll be able to take it up slowly here and there on the Choosing Home forum. I did try, with Keer, but she bowed out. I guess I was too annoying. *grin*

Oops. I grinned again. Sorry. [achooo!]

Ok, I'm being silly now. But I really am a goofy gal, so... I realize you're not feeling very goofy at the moment. You want logic. You want cold hard facts. You want doctrinal dissertations. But really, Catez, if I took the time to give you some, do you really think it would do any good whatsoever? When anyone else has attempted to answer "concerns," they get their answers blasted out of the water. So...at a certain point [achoooo!], one wonders what IS the point.

When things calm down, please know that I bear no ill will your direction, and was honestly responding in a matter-of-fact way to your reply to me. Still am. Very very very calmly. With warm cookies in my mouth (organic, of course, with malt-sweetened choc chips). Mmmmm...

And now, my 7, 5, 4, and 2 year old are done munching cookies, and my infant just fell asleep. Time to go PLAY! Thanks for the conversation!

*waves at group and exits stage left*

• Permanent Link

Posted by Anonymous

"(I saw your negative review of TTUAC, btw, a little while back, and I'm guessing you are not too awful fond of the Pearl's opinions on many matters, and therefore much more likely to view her as an enemy of the truth. Am I totally wrong there, or are you coming at this particular book review without any preconcieved opinions?)... "

I thought I had answered this. Molly if you read my comments here then there is no need to ask this question. I wrote a review of one of their books. So? It has nothing to do with Deborah's posts or Spunky's. It has nothing to do with my comments here. Why would you immediately assume the worst? I'm not coming at this book review with preconceived opinions. You are out of order. This discussion should stick to the issues.

The issues are that there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding on who the book is designed for and on what doctrine is.
The review and responses to Spunky's reviews may not be independent (the responses certainly aren't).
The author has made a statement here but has not addressed any of the biblical concerns raised.
An official position has been taken by a magazine on responses which are not independent - and in response to what Spunky wrote on her own personal blog.
Copyright was breached (although Spunky was gracious about that, this is a magazine's official position - one expects better).


No-one has been "blasted" for providing biblical assertions. I've provided two long comments outlining issues. Others have expressed their views also in a reasonable manner. Please stick to the issues.

Catez
http://allthings2all.blogspot.com

• Permanent Link

Posted by Anonymous

Hi Rebekah,

You said this:

>>She and her husband are in love and rejoicing in their life together. Together they are busy ministering to others, and spreading the news about what God has done for them. In the past year she and her husband have been actively ministering to the couples that live near them. "Sunny" claims that their testimony and my Mom's book has saved lives and changed marriages all around them. She is a real person. <<

Do you have any links to some of their testimonies about their situation or any types that they have done where they have given their testimony? Would they be willing to write a public testimony concerning their situation and as a follow-up to the book?

Thanks,

Corrie

• Permanent Link

Posted by Anonymous

I just want to say that I am very shocked and saddened by the perceived need of TOS to take an official stance against someone who is not even employed by their magazine. I do not understand the need to stand behind another ministry (even when that ministry differs in some very big ways concerning orthodox Christian view of original sin which is the stance that TOS takes but NGJ does not take) or book in this fashion.

Spunky posted on her private blog. Then a professional organization felt that they needed to go after *her* private review of the book? I have to say I have never seen anything like this before. It just doesn't makes sense. If Deborah wanted to privately post her opinions on her own, that is great but to make it an official stance of a national home schooling magazine?

Also, the review was filled with vitriolic language directed towards Spunky and her understanding or lack thereof concerning the book. This is NOT professional, imho.

There have been some very good questions that have arisen because of this book which have been cast off as a bunch of people who have a personal axe to grind with the Pearls. That is just not logical, especially when people have taken great pains to deal with the context and doctrine of certain statements contained in the book.

Officially, I see a statement that the reason why many don't understand the book is because they don't understand a certain doctrine but then I see that it was officially stated that this book isn't about doctrine?

Also, when people make the assertion that we shouldn't read negative tones into other people's posts then I would also like them to give others that same benefit of the doubt. It seems some are very absorbed in the tone of another's post but then talk about how we shouldn't read "tone" into posts. It all gets very confusing. It is a red herring and it throws the discussion off and makes one person defend something instead of some very legitimate questions getting answered.

I thank Spunky for being so gracious even while having her motives and words twisted into something they are not. I am thankful that there are a few brave people who are willing to put their necks out on the chopping block and discuss their concerns about this book. I can tell you that it is much easier to keep one's head in and under the shell than to stick it out. It is not popular, especially in home schooling circles, to disagree with anything in this book. It certainly is an emotional issue and I am not certain why a book has come to elicit such reactions and defense. The only book worthy of such loyalty is the Bible, imho. Otherwise, it is just a book.

Corrie (who posted in monotone)

• Permanent Link

Posted by Anonymous

Thank you so much for writing this! I read Spunky's reviews (critiques) of the Help Meet book, and I thought many of the same things you have written here, only I did not know how to articulate them so well as you have done (plus, I didn't have the time!). This is excellent, and I hope more folks will have a chance to read this.

Faith

• Permanent Link

Posted by Momwtrmn

I'm so glad to know where TOS stands on the CTBHH issue. I have to admit, I had some nagging questions in my head since I already knew (and openly disagreed/debated with) Spunky's opinions (though I, too, still admire her and her other writings), and yet I saw in your magazine some NGJ advertisements as well as Spunky's pic and bio in the contributing editors' pages. I wondered how the two fit together. Now I know. Thank you for letting us know where your organization stands.

Many blessings,
Christi

• Permanent Link