A Switch or a Cross
Apr. 12, 2006 at 5:26 PM
Homeschooling
I have been following quite a few discussions around the blogosphere on the Pearls. A few posts that I would like to highlight are Dana's post Garden of Eden and My Two Cents on No Greater Joy. Definitely worth reading.
Ann also wrote a post called Pearls and Perfectionism . In a very candid way, she explains how the Pearls teachings have affected her. Of the Pearls writing, Ann asserts;
I became acquainted with the Pearls teachings in 1996. Since that introduction, I have read much of the Pearls written material, attended a weekend seminar hosting Mr. Pearl, and listened to a few of their tapes. I don't evaluate as one with a purely negative view of the Pearls. They speak quite a bit about "tying strings" and having a positive relationship with your children. That is always a good reminder.
However, a parent especially a mother, desperate to raise obedient Godly children can come away with the idea that the Pearls way is the only way and not read the material objectively in light of the scripture and her husband's desires. Michael Pearl in the article In Defense of Bliblical Chastisment Part 2 states,
Further, their tone in the writing is sometimes a bit harsh and intimidating. This tone coupled with a fear of failure can lead an insecure or perfectionist parent to excessive and harsh discipline. Ann shared honestly her struggle in that very way.
Like Ann, I have also come to a similar conclusion about the lack of consistency and clarity in their writing. It is the lack of clarity in their teaching that is most troubling. After listening to Mr. Pearl at a seminar a few years ago, I came away with a very different interpretation than what I had when I only read the book To Train Up a Child and some newsletters. As everyone does, I took my background and applied it to the material. After the seminar, I realized my idea of training was very different than Mr. Pearls. His method of training and answers to specific questions were not exactly what I thought appropriate in many areas. I began to realize that if I could misinterpret it so could others. While my misinterpretation may not be harmful some else's very well could be. I don't know what is going on in other homes. I began to recommend their materials much more cautiously for this reason.
Last summer, I spoke about this confusion and lack of clarity in my review of Created To Be His Helpmeet. During Part III of the review I stumbled upon a statement by Michael Pearl that caused me to withrdraw my support for them completely. When asked by a woman what to do with an abusive husband Michael responds, (emphasis added)
Don't misundertand, this is not the same as accusing Mr. Pearl of hitting his wife. However, his answer does not provide sufficient clarity to leave it without a doubt that a man should NOT hit his wife under ANY circumstances no matter how long the mark lasts. I cannot in good conscience recommend the materials of someone who cannot say in no uncertain terms that hitting a wife is WRONG the first time and intervention of some sort is necessary so he won't repeat it. It may not be the legal authorities but a wife should not have to watch how long the mark lasts or "fear that he'll do it again" before seeking help. He did it once, that's reason enough.
Michael Pearl believes that swift consistent correction the first time leads to a postive change in behavior.
More recently, I have gone back to the website to see if this had been cleared up. It hadn't. I also read some of their material that I hadn't previously read in print form. Quite a few articles were confusing and lacked clarity. For the sake of brevity, I will highlight only two here.
The Rod to Establish the Authority of Our Word
Spanking a Seven Month Old
A mother writes in a wonders if spanking a seven month old is appropriate. The context involves putting the child to sleep for the night. Debi gives a very maternal answer about nurturing the baby to sleep. Michael provides a very ambiguous answer. He offers the same nurturing advice as Debi but doesn't rule out the need to spank a baby for not laying down when told. His answer is very unclear. Initially he appears to say that it is wrong that a child at 7 months is too young
To a parent desperate for answers his answer is unclear but leaves the impression that it is okay to spank a 7 month old as long as you can do it calmly without anger. Spanking with a "few stinging lick" to an infant no matter the tempermant of the parent is wrong.
The consistent use of the rod seems to be the savior for all problems of obedience, bad habits, and the misdeeds of children.
When advising a mother on what to do with a screaming three year old, they write;
Michael teaches in Biblical Chastisement part 2
Even though Debi believes this may not work for everyone, Michael seems to believe that this is the only way remedy to relieve the guilt of one in this type of situation,
I am so thankful that our Savior doesn't deal with me in such a manner. When I was a sinner, my heavenly Father did not chastise me and give me a switching or an eternity apart from Him. Out of love for me, he sent HIS son to die on my behalf. Christ took my sin upon himself and said "I will pay the price." Instead of giving me a "switch", he took my penalty and went to the cross.
Ann also wrote a post called Pearls and Perfectionism . In a very candid way, she explains how the Pearls teachings have affected her. Of the Pearls writing, Ann asserts;
In the comments to the post by Ann at Choosing Home, Jennifer (#67) asked1. Their writings lack clarity.
2. Their writings create sufficient confusion to potentially lead well-meaning, loving parents into abusive discipline.
3. Their writings belittle those who do not subscribe to their paradigm which may cause a parent to doubt any of their own, personal misgivings with Pearl teaching...which is, again, potentially dangerous.
I often read that people like "some" of what the Pearls say and are uncomfortable or don't like other stuff they put out. I would love to hear some more specifics on what folks don't like about them and why. This is really a question for people who, in general, are supporters or who have been in the past, for people who give them a mixed review.This post is a small attempt to answer Jennifer's comment from my perspective as one who previously enjoyed the Pearls early teachings but no longer recommends them.
I became acquainted with the Pearls teachings in 1996. Since that introduction, I have read much of the Pearls written material, attended a weekend seminar hosting Mr. Pearl, and listened to a few of their tapes. I don't evaluate as one with a purely negative view of the Pearls. They speak quite a bit about "tying strings" and having a positive relationship with your children. That is always a good reminder.
However, a parent especially a mother, desperate to raise obedient Godly children can come away with the idea that the Pearls way is the only way and not read the material objectively in light of the scripture and her husband's desires. Michael Pearl in the article In Defense of Bliblical Chastisment Part 2 states,
If you do not see the wisdom in what I have said, and you reject these concepts, you are not fit to be a parent. I pity your children. They will never experience the freedom of soul and conscience that mine do.That's a pretty grave consequence for not following their concepts. No one wants to be thought an "unfit parent" with pitied children! Statements like this don't encourage objective evaluation of his "wisdom" in light of God's Word. No method is completely perfect and true. All ideas should be scrutinized. Some may suggest that this goes without saying. However, when one writes with such an authoritative tone and puts forth such dire consequences for rejecting the concepts, this needs to be explicity stated for humility's sake if nothing else.
Further, their tone in the writing is sometimes a bit harsh and intimidating. This tone coupled with a fear of failure can lead an insecure or perfectionist parent to excessive and harsh discipline. Ann shared honestly her struggle in that very way.
Like Ann, I have also come to a similar conclusion about the lack of consistency and clarity in their writing. It is the lack of clarity in their teaching that is most troubling. After listening to Mr. Pearl at a seminar a few years ago, I came away with a very different interpretation than what I had when I only read the book To Train Up a Child and some newsletters. As everyone does, I took my background and applied it to the material. After the seminar, I realized my idea of training was very different than Mr. Pearls. His method of training and answers to specific questions were not exactly what I thought appropriate in many areas. I began to realize that if I could misinterpret it so could others. While my misinterpretation may not be harmful some else's very well could be. I don't know what is going on in other homes. I began to recommend their materials much more cautiously for this reason.
Last summer, I spoke about this confusion and lack of clarity in my review of Created To Be His Helpmeet. During Part III of the review I stumbled upon a statement by Michael Pearl that caused me to withrdraw my support for them completely. When asked by a woman what to do with an abusive husband Michael responds, (emphasis added)
If you or your children have been hit (other than the children being spanked) so as to leave discernable marks two hours later, and you genuinely fear that he will repeat his battering, you can take legal steps without divorcing your husband....At the time of that writing and still today it is unclear whether Mr. Pearl believes it is okay for a man to hit his wife as long as he doesn't leave a mark lasting over two hours.
Don't misundertand, this is not the same as accusing Mr. Pearl of hitting his wife. However, his answer does not provide sufficient clarity to leave it without a doubt that a man should NOT hit his wife under ANY circumstances no matter how long the mark lasts. I cannot in good conscience recommend the materials of someone who cannot say in no uncertain terms that hitting a wife is WRONG the first time and intervention of some sort is necessary so he won't repeat it. It may not be the legal authorities but a wife should not have to watch how long the mark lasts or "fear that he'll do it again" before seeking help. He did it once, that's reason enough.
Michael Pearl believes that swift consistent correction the first time leads to a postive change in behavior.
If, and only if, you are absolutely consistent, meeting every transgression with swift penalty, then they will quickly adapt themselves to the new order. They will do the incredible. They will obey. (NGJ, Vol 1, 33)If a child who disobeys deserves swift correction the first time, why not the same for a husband who violates his wife by hitting her? He is certainly more intellectually aware of his actions than a child.
More recently, I have gone back to the website to see if this had been cleared up. It hadn't. I also read some of their material that I hadn't previously read in print form. Quite a few articles were confusing and lacked clarity. For the sake of brevity, I will highlight only two here.
The Rod to Establish the Authority of Our Word
Spanking a Seven Month Old
A mother writes in a wonders if spanking a seven month old is appropriate. The context involves putting the child to sleep for the night. Debi gives a very maternal answer about nurturing the baby to sleep. Michael provides a very ambiguous answer. He offers the same nurturing advice as Debi but doesn't rule out the need to spank a baby for not laying down when told. His answer is very unclear. Initially he appears to say that it is wrong that a child at 7 months is too young
I do caution: A 7-month-old is too young to be spanked as such - too young to be punished.but at the end he states,
If the child has been mistrained, or if you have failed to provide a good prelude to sleep, and the child rises up to fight and resist, you should evaluate your whole procedure so as to improve your pre-sleep ritual for tomorrow night. But for the moment, you must constrain the child to obey authority and remain lying down. As a last resort, you may have to prove the power of your word by enforcing it with one or two stinging licks (applied with a small flexible switch) to the child's leg that says to the child, "There is no reward for getting up; Mama means business; she is not going to give over to my demands; the path to greatest pleasure is to go to sleep; there is no alternative; my parents always get their way; what can I say? Good night.This advice is hardly what I would call a straight answer. He says that 7 months is too young but as a last resort, you must "prove the power of your word" so go ahead and give a few licks. Spanking a 7 month old with one or two stinging licks for failure to lay down when told is just plain wrong. To make it even more confusing, Michael Pearl admits a child at that age has no knowledge of good or evil. Yet, a negative consequence is applied to a child who has already learning the "dark side of self-will". Very confusing indeed.
To a parent desperate for answers his answer is unclear but leaves the impression that it is okay to spank a 7 month old as long as you can do it calmly without anger. Spanking with a "few stinging lick" to an infant no matter the tempermant of the parent is wrong.
The consistent use of the rod seems to be the savior for all problems of obedience, bad habits, and the misdeeds of children.
When advising a mother on what to do with a screaming three year old, they write;
Consistency on your part will break that habit in just a few days. Never threaten, and never show mercy. One squeak of a scream gets a switching. (NGJ, Vol 1, pg 26)The idea that a parent is never to show mercies leaves only the choice of a rod as the solution to this and most other infractions. However, according to scripture, mercy has a definite place and judgement is reserved for those who never show mercy,
Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!" James 2:13
Punishing the soul with the rod.
The Pearls establish another use of the rod besides training or chastisement. The rod is used for the punishment of the soul. Here's an example, (emphasis added)
She goes on to say how much the spankings grieved her and that after the seventh day her liar was cured of his lying and now hates it. To her credit, Debi admits this may not work for everyone. She also admits, it was HER failure that caused his lying.When our second son, Nathan, was about six years old, we were forced to face the fact that we had a son who was an incorrigible liar. It was difficult to accept because he had the sweetest, most innocent and sincere countenance. And he was smart! I think his bad habit was encouraged by his knowledge that I did not want to believe he was a liar. Consequently, he grew worse until he would actually lie when the truth would have served him better. I realized that somewhere along the line, I had missed the opportunity to deal with him while he was still young enough to easily break the habit. After much soul-searching and many botched ideas, I finally told Nathan that I realized he was a liar, even though I couldn’t catch him red-handed in his lies. I told him that God hated lying, that I hated it, that I had failed him, and that it was very important that he not continue to be a liar. I informed him that everyday for the next seven days, I was going to give him 10 licks at noon. He was to bring me the switch and I would spank him for being a liar.....
.....When the clock struck twelve, I very calmly, and without pity, reminded him, "You are a liar, and lying is an ugly, hateful thing. In order that your soul shall be spared, I'm going to whip you." That was all I said, no praying, no sermons, no "you break my heart' appeals.
I am not suggesting that this is the way to stop lying in all children. This may never work for you, but I was desperate and was willing to try something drastic. If I had been on my toes in earlier child training, Nathan would have never become such a liar.A lying child is a awful situation. But isn't her son's lying really a result of Debi's failure to properly teach or train him? She claims responsibility but her son paid the price in the form of a swtich. The son hadn't lied on each of the days he was "switched". He was being swatted for who HE WAS not something he did. Nor was there any prayer, repentance, or training involved during the punishment. He was just told at noon to bring a switch.
Michael teaches in Biblical Chastisement part 2
Where is the switch for Debi's misdeeds. She admitted it was her failure that led to his lying. Shouldn't she get the switch in his place?The soul of your child needs to be punished. He feels the need to suffer for his misdeeds.
Even though Debi believes this may not work for everyone, Michael seems to believe that this is the only way remedy to relieve the guilt of one in this type of situation,
When your child is in the first throes of this debilitating condition, be kind enough to punish him. Care enough and love enough to pay the emotional sacrifice to give him ten to fifteen licks that will satisfy his need to experience payback.Michael asserts that this can happen to a child as young as three or four but most likely in older chilren. The idea that the soul of a child needs to be punished and paid for by a rod is questionable at best. Mr. Pearl provides no scriptural justification for doing this. Just the warning that if you fail to see the wisdom you are an unfit parent and your children will never experience the freedom of soul and conscience.
I am so thankful that our Savior doesn't deal with me in such a manner. When I was a sinner, my heavenly Father did not chastise me and give me a switching or an eternity apart from Him. Out of love for me, he sent HIS son to die on my behalf. Christ took my sin upon himself and said "I will pay the price." Instead of giving me a "switch", he took my penalty and went to the cross.
He who knew no sin became sin for us, so that we may become the righteousness of God.There is a place for the rod, but it should never replace the cross.
(Note: Anonymous comments without a blog or valid email will not be allowed in this post. Please stay on topic. Off topic comments will be deleted. I will allow the one anonymous comment here to remain since I did not post this before the comment.)
36 Comments and Trackbacks
posted by MistyKrasawski on Apr. 12, 2006 at 5:58 PM
I've read the Pearl's writings, also, and have had mixed feelings about them. But what you've shared here makes me determined NOT to bother with them at all in the future. There's some good being said, surely. Otherwise, no one would listen to them at all. But mix in "just a little" arsenic? I think I'll pass. The things you've shared here are important and they are *wrong, wrong, wrong*. I am absolutely horrified by Debi's 12 o clock switchings . . .just don't even know what to say about that. We all have a tendency to look for the formulaic answer to our children's character issues, and we want someone to hand down the perfect response to every infringement. Alas, the perfect response doesn't exist! We have to learn to seek God's face even about the little things, because He's the one who created our children and the one who knows what's going on in their hearts. If someone asks me to recommend a parenting book, I'm passing on Shepherding a Child's Heart, Hints on Child Training, and Heartfelt Discipline, all of which focus on sympathizing with your child's weaknesses (knowing and admitting that you have some of your own!), seeking God's advice in any given situation, and bonding your children's hearts to your own through respect and love. Any formulaic approach to discipline is bound to fail, in my estimation.
posted by Anonymous on Apr. 12, 2006 at 6:18 PM
I passed on the switching part of their advice because I knew I was not of their temperament. That's the feeling I get about the Pearls, by the way...I'm sure they carried out their own discipline methods without abusing their children...at least, judging by the way their children have turned out. They seem to be a very loving family. Also, I have friends who have recommended their methods and their children are really wonderful people too. I note that these families possess a very warm sense of humor--maybe that's the key? Maybe the point about perfectionism is right.
Nevertheless, I felt I was not the right kind of temperament for following their advice closely. I'm responsible before God for how I handle my children, not before the author of a particular parenting method. And so much of it depends on my character. I have so many struggles of my own & often feel I need more discipline than my children!
That said, the Pearls' "tying heartstrings" advice is very good. It's what I took away from their books and it often comes to mind when I'm dealing with my children in a way that isn't Christlike (speaking out of frustration, etc.). I also got a lot out of CTBHHM, personally. Especially where joy and thankfulness were discussed. There were a couple of spots that I found confusing (the abusive husband who wielded a knife against his wife, yet she stayed with him, and also the story of the lady who threw a rock through a window because her husband was viewing porn--weird!). Also, there were some theological points I passed on. But, overall, I felt it improved my attitude and reignited my joy in homekeeping. (Allthings2all had a good blog entry on Michael's theology that made perfect sense to me, and didn't demonize the Pearls.)
I think the Pearls seem like basically decent people and loving parents, and I hate to see them being piled on. There's a place for legitimate criticism, like Spunky is providing here. But the malicious stuff I've read really puts me off.
posted by BelovedLamb on Apr. 12, 2006 at 6:21 PM
I've been trying to stay out of these conversations - feeling I must be in the minority. A few years ago, my DH and I realized that the parenting style we had adopted, through reading TTUAC and othes like it, was not exhibiting a Christlike attitude towards our children. We started to consider what truly was in the Bible and what wasn't regarding parents and childre. We came away with a much different attitude about disciple and parenting. Thank you for your well written response on the subject!
posted by DiWilliams on Apr. 12, 2006 at 6:41 PM
I agree with much of what you said.
I only read their materials in the first place, on the advice of well-meaning friends and relatives. The first time I read TTUAC, I thought it was just plain weird and disregarded it. Next time I read it, I still thought it was weird and just ignored the parts I disagreed with. Didn't think it would be harmful if I ignored those parts and followed the parts I did agree with. So I gave it a try, turned into a terrible mother, lost my children's hearts, but still refused to say anything bad about the Pearls because I knew several other people who had nothing but praises for them and had very well behaved children to boot.
I figured it was just my temperment, my own emotional issues, etc. I felt that if I said anything against them, I would be judged as a bad parent anytime my children acted up. (I guess I have some issues with insecurity and feeling judged.)So I have been very inconsistently going back and forth between their methods, and what I had been doing all along. My children were MUCH better behaved (and I had their hearts) before I read TTUAC the 2nd time. Now I am trying to win their hearts back.
I did, however, enjoy CTBHHM. It did have a very positive effect one me and my marriage. I didn't agree with Michael's stuff at the end, though. That part could've been left out!
posted by mistresninos on Apr. 12, 2006 at 7:44 PM
Gee, and I'm supposed to be on a hiatus from computer usage...Beloved Lamb sent this link to me and I'm glad she did. Great work "Spunky" I really enjoyed your reasoned review of the Pearl's and their very sad ideas of parenting and life. I wasn't going to comment but Ms. Anonymous (and I hope she comes back to read this) got my ire up so since she doesn't do us the favor of telling us who she is I will have to say something here...
What does an "abused child" look like? Is there some sort of character trait, some sort of obvious outward sign that says, "Hey, I'm abused. Save me."? I am going to state here and now that there is not. If you were to go to my blog (either of them) and read anything written in the past you will see no evidence that I was abused. If you were to meet me in person it would never cross your mind that I was abused. But I was, and horribly. I will not state all the things, suffice to say I was but I show no outward signs. I seem normal for the most part, even as a child I seemed normal. No one thought anything of my behavior that would "prove" beyond a doubt that the abuse going on in our home had horribly harmed me.
These people's children may seem normal to the outside world. That does not make the abuse condoned in the writings of the Pearl's NOT abuse.
posted by on Apr. 12, 2006 at 7:55 PM
Oops! That anonymous commenter was me. Sorry! Usually it defaults to my registered name.
ETA: I just meant that by the *testimony* (not necessarily appearance) of their own children, they were not abused. Obviously, you go by the testimony of the individual.
Edited by SusannahCox on Apr. 12, 2006 at 4:58 PM
posted by SusannahCox on Apr. 12, 2006 at 8:03 PM
Testing, testing...
posted by spunkyhomeschool on Apr. 12, 2006 at 8:05 PM
The point of this post is not to accuse the Pearls of abusing their own children. I believe the testimony of the Pearl chilren that their upbringing was joyful.
But your point is well taken that it isn't obvious who is and who isn't being abused. And that is why I do not feel comfortable recommending these materials. The lack of clarity could provide just the justification needed for a parent who is excessively disciplining their child. I don't want that responsibilty on me for recommending the materials. There are plenty of other books and resources that are available that teach on these subjects without the ambiguity.
posted by ginabina on Apr. 13, 2006 at 12:25 AM
I have been praying for two days about how I wish to respond to the Pearl issue that has cropped up in the homeschool blog world.
God answered me through your Christ-inspired words tonight.
Bless you,
ginabina
www.momisright.blogspot.com
posted by ginabina on Apr. 13, 2006 at 12:26 AM
I have been praying for two days about how I wish to respond to the Pearl issue that has cropped up in the homeschool blog world.
God answered me through your Christ-inspired words tonight.
Bless you,
ginabina
www.momisright.blogspot.com
posted by scottsdomesticangel on Apr. 13, 2006 at 9:54 AM
Here is what it comes down to for me. And I've heard much of what I'm about to say on MANY of the blogs, articles, etc. on both sides of this Pearl controversy.
Read and glean.
And I KNOW there is alot wrong with that statement; like the ones who are not spiritually mature enough to discern what is right and what is wrong. These are the babes that really need us when they come asking for advice. If we can't understand that concept or help teach it to other, then I guess we ALL should not read ANYTHING.
I have gleaned much useful information from Mrs. Pearls new book CTBHH. I have not read TTUAC, but I know I would NEVER use that type of child training, just from the comments from those who HAVE read the book, whether they were in favor of it or not.
I look at this issue like I do going to the doctor or asking advice from anyone else. There are some of us who will do EVERYTHING the doc says. Some of us will only take the meds for 8 days, instead of 10. Some of us will ask for advice, but only do the part of it that fits US.
The difference is in writing. The words are written down, memorialized so to speak, for the remainder of time. There to refer back to. I am grateful I can't remember som of the words I have spoken. Or the tone I spoke them in. But in writing, there they are. Forever etched on paper. I wonder if any of us has ever written anything we've 'taken back'? Spunky herself even says she used to endorse the Pearls, but now cannot. Words spoken can be denied or taken back. The written word cannot.
And I do believe that statement should make an author even MORE responsible for what they write. And I agree with your statement about ambiguity and lack of clarity in the Pearls writing. I just have not actually READ enough of their stuff to 'get' that point. Thank you for clearing that up for me.
All in all....I feel the Pearls are much like an organized religion. THEY believe THEY have the right way, b/c it worked for them (by the grace of God, I might add). Many of us continue in an organized religion that we really don't agree with on every point.....but we take what we want, and leave the rest......OR we leave and find a place that is more aligned with how we believe.
Which brings me back to my first point.
Read and glean.
Denise
posted by spunkyhomeschool on Apr. 13, 2006 at 10:05 AM
Denise,
You are so correct. Something that is said, can come across far different on paper. But the written word can be ammended as necessary if new information becomes available or further clarification is necessary. It doesn't have to be forever. New editions of books are printed and modifications can be made. While this may not solve all problems of misinterpretation it can clear up many of them.
The hope is that we all have the humility to understand we don't have all the answers and no concept is right 100% of the time.
posted by CommunicationFUNdamentals on Apr. 13, 2006 at 10:30 AM
Thank you so much, Spunky, for clarifying some of these points for me. I haven't read the Pearls writings and had no idea what others saw that would inspire them to think they had abused their children. I now see why some may feel this way.
I think two issues are at work here:
1. They appear to have a "My way or the Highway" attitude about child rearing.
This is a communication trap people often set for themselves. I wrote a few blog posts on this already. We need to understand that the Lord made each of us unique individuals. We each see things and respond to things differently. What I believe is right for me may not be right for you. It may not even be right for me 10 yrs from now. When we come across this way, we alienate those who may have another view and cause division among our Christian brothers/sisters. Furthermore, it causes many people to build walls ensuring that the message falls of deaf ears. Each of us is charged with the care and upbringing of our own unique individuals and we have only God to answer to.
2. Lack of clarity can cause misunderstandings.
It may be that Mr. Pearl is afraid to commit to how he really feels or that his writing is just unclear. I have addressed this issue in my post: Share Information with Boldness and Grace. Beating around the bush can cause misunderstanding, but not only about the subject you are addressing. It may, as in this case, cause misunderstanding about your character and your heart. This has far more devastating effects.
I applaud you for backing up your feelings with facts/examples and for doing so with such grace. I can see valid points on both sides. Most of the posts I have seen on this subject have been anonymous accusations. If you truly believe in what you are saying, it is important to speak up, but it must be done with grace and by presenting examples or facts. Lastly, I believe that it is only fair that you do so in your own name.
JoJo
posted by spunkyhomeschool on Apr. 13, 2006 at 1:23 PM
Thanks for your comments JoJo. Your comments on effective communication are appreciated. I read the post you referenced. I found it quite helpful. Thanks for sharing.
posted by Melkhi on Apr. 13, 2006 at 3:57 PM
The other day I checked my HSB "friends" list which I haven't done in awhile. I had you on my list, b/c I like to check in on your blog regularly, but your blog somehow was moved off of my list. I really don't know how that happened. I put your blog back on my friends list and hopefully there it will stay.
Also, I hope your daughter figured out how to get the sound to work on the video I posted. I think you'd like it. If you can't get it to work, I could just tell you what was going on.
Melissa
posted by spunkyhomeschool on Apr. 13, 2006 at 4:00 PM
My HSB blog was accidentally deleted by the admin. team. We were able to get most of it back but the friends list was lost. I'm slowly rebuilding it back up. Thanks for readding me.
posted by livin4Him6 on Apr. 13, 2006 at 5:39 PM
Thanks for the very well thought out post about something that could be divisive. I used to get the Pearls newsletter, but my dh thought that it bordered on abuse and asked that I not get it any more. I did buy Created to be His Helpmeet (with dh consent) and though for the most part it is good, I found (and so did dh) that many scriptures were taken totally out of context. I personally do not recommend the Pearls any more, but I do tell people that read them to seriously do it prayerfully and really to consider the source and not take everything at face value.
posted by Momwtrmn on Apr. 14, 2006 at 2:33 AM
I know, Spunky, that this comment will not cause you to once again be an advocate of the Pearls. My hope is that it may instead help one or two who are sitting on the fence.
I have yet to find an author I agree with wholeheartedly, but I don't dismiss them entirely when I do disagree. I have to take into account that either they or I are mistaken; we are all "in the works." All our knowledge will be perfected in Heaven, when our understanding will be complete. Only then will we really know if "we" or "they" were right.
However, regarding the recommendation of the Pearls' writings, even the Bible is hard to take, regardless if one is a babe or adult in Christ. Each person is ready to accept different parts of Scripture at different times in their lives. For example, when I first married, I wasn't ready to understand the concept of being a submissive wife. Even now, 13 years later, intricacies of that exhortation are still becoming clear. Also, I didn't fully embrace the idea of homeschooling. Even when I did begin to homeschool, I still worried about my children's socialization. Only maturity brought about the openness the Holy Spirit needed in me to do the Work necessary. Still, I am unfinished. Then there are such divisive issues as Santa Claus, divorce and remarriage, fast food, pork, wine, saying "butt" or "rear end," and on and on.
But I sincerely hope that someone doesn't dismiss me entirely simply because I am not completed in Christ. Certainly, what wisdom I have gained is beneficial to some, even if it is different from someone much wiser.
I think the same is true of the Pearls. They have wisdom that is beyond my years. Do I think they are incorruptible? No. Only God's Word is. But even among those who believe God's Word to be perfect there is still dissention, as mentioned above. Why? Because people come to the table from all manner of backgrounds, experiences, knowledge, and understandings! But, just because the Bible can be interpreted in a harmful, disagreeable, or self-fulfilling way doesn't mean I'm going to advise someone NOT to read it.
The Pearls have much wisdom regarding discipline. It has worked for them. Much of it has worked for me and even for a non-Christian friend I recommended the book to. But, I am also wise enough not to treat their writing as if it were God's Word Itself. It is human interpretation of the applied Word of God. Isn't that all any of us brothers and sisters in Christ do? We apply what we learn. When we see the blessings of that, we pass on that wisdom in our own, though often errant, way. Disagreeing with some of their methods or approaches doesn't mean they are unworthy to teach God's Word.
If you are on the fence regarding the Pearls, please discern for yourself. Don't take my word. Don't take Spunky's. Read it. Listen to it. Pray on it. And seek Scripture. Then you will be able to know true from false. Even still, I know dissentions will arise. But trust in the fact that full knowledge will be granted on the other side.
Many blessings!
Christi Waterman
posted by on Apr. 14, 2006 at 8:12 AM
Thank you Christi,
I understand what you are saying and held that view for a while myself. But as I continued to understand my responsibility in Christ, I couldn't just "take the meat, and spit out the bones." While I'm enjoiying some aspects someone else may be choking on the bones.
Because of both the tone and the words of the Pearls, it is difficult for me to know which will happen to somone I recommend it to. There is enough other material out there without the ambiguity that I can recommend without that anxiety.
I am heartened to know you were wise enough to discern what would work for you and what wouldnt' However, the Pearls idea that if we fail to see the wisdom of his concepts we are an unfit parent and our chldren are to be pitied, is not something I can ignore. That is not the statement of someone who wants us to think anyway but the way of their "wisdom".
Nor can I encourage others to spank their seven month old. Others may see this differenltlly. I accept that we are all growing in Christ. But because we are still growing I don't want to recommend the idea of spanking an infant to someone who has yet to discenn the problem with that teaching.
Nor can ignore the idea that the rod is for the punsihment of the soul. This is beyond the use of the rod for training, or correction. Again, we are all growing in Christ. I don't want to recommend the idea of spanking a child for WHO HE IS to someone who cannot understand or discern for themselves the potential danger in this.
I do not find any scriptural justification for the use of the rod for the punshment of the soul.
If you can in good conscience recommend this book knowing that the teachings will be applied apporpraitely, fine.
I cannot.
Edited by spunkyhomeschool on Apr. 14, 2006 at 5:16 AM
posted by spunkyhomeschool on Apr. 14, 2006 at 8:33 AM
I do hope that all take the time to read Ann's post. It shares in a very gracious way how the Pearls teachings have affected her.
posted by Momwtrmn on Apr. 14, 2006 at 11:06 AM
When we encounter a new believer, we don't say to them, "Don't read the Old Testament, because we live in an age of grace now, and much of it doesn't apply to us anymore." Instead, we let the new believer read their bible and let the Holy Spirit do the work of letting them know that blood sacrifices aren't necessary anymore, and that avoiding pork isn't necessary for righteousness, though it is still beneficial for healthfulness, etc. Also, we answer their questions and give our wisdom when necessary, but we don't tell them not to read their Bibles simply because they may interpret some OT laws thinking that they'll have to slaughter the family dog to gain forgiveness. That's assuming a lot on the ignorance of new believers and the inability of the Holy Spirit.
I do believe that training with a tiny spank (Michael Pearl mentions that it be a small switch and that the spanks sting, not wound) can be appropriate for a 7-month old. Here's what I did with my 3rd-born child when he was 10-months old (now 3 and 1/2 yrs.) and wished I had begun earlier, but hadn't conceived of it or read their book:
We used to have a problem with him grabbing at my glasses constantly. I was at my wits end so that I didn't want to carry him anymore. That's when I read their instructions on how to actually train a small child and they even included this exact same problem in their book. My son was at the "cruising" stage in his walking development, so I laid my glasses down on the coffee table and he crawled right over and stood up. I had in my not-seen hand a wooden spoon, the handle of which was my "switch" (in retro-spect, I think I should have used a small switch from a tree... much less solid... as Michael recommends... but I was brand new at this and still learning what to apply and what to adapt). With my seen hand, I pointed to the glasses, gently told him, "Don't touch," and watched what he would do. Sure enough, he grabbed at them. I didn't hesitate and immediately spanked his little hand, swiftly but gently so as to only sting, and he pulled his hand back. The look on his little face told it all. "What was that? Should I cry?" it seemed to ask. With a look of bewilderment, he watched me point again to the glasses and gently say, "No. Don't touch." Again, he grabbed at them. Again, came the small sting. In less than five minutes of this approach, I had successfully trained him not to touch whatever I pointed at. In fact, several times, just to test if it had actually stuck, I wold bring his bowl of rice cereal to his high chair WITHOUT his cereal spoon, point to his cereal and say, "Don't touch." Then I would walk away, back into the kitchen (a wall separates my DR from my K, so I had to actually walk away out of sight), retrieve his cereal spoon, and never once did he touch his cereal while I was gone. At 10 months he was learning self-control!
Also, they recommend not stopping the rod of discipline when your child is, say, older than 9 (perhaps... it's been years since I've read it). Continue in rod discipline even when they are older. Well, at the time, my eldest child was exactly 9 and I had abandoned spanking her for about 2 years. I again reinstated spanking her (though she only gets maybe two or three spanks a year, she's so very much a happy compliant child), and it has been most beneficial. Now, on ther verge of becoming a teenager in only a few short months, she comes to me and confesses even the "tiniest" of transgressions that I could never have noticed b/c on the surface they seem like normal actions... but it's her heart's motive she comes to me and confesses. She says things like, "When I asked if I could do that activity, it was after I took it out and put it back. Dad doesn't want me to take something out first and then ask, but that's what I did. And I put it back so you wouldn't see that I had taken it out. I was being deceitful." She's TWELVE! She only thinks on those things b/c we have been consistent with the "rod and reproof" (please read my Exhortations category for my writing on using the rod AND reproof... the reproof is so necessary!)...
I read sometime ago someone's writing regarding why today we view some of God's OT laws as harsh or even unjust. It's because we as a society in general don't view sin the way God does. We have lost sight of what sin really is. When we give birth to a new little baby, we aren't just receiving a wonderful blessing and inheritance, but we are also raising a tiny, miniature sinner. We must keep in mind that our children are sinners and that it is our duty to train them up.
God does the same thing he asks us to do. We know God was justified when He allowed Joni Eriksontada (sp?) to become paralyzed b/c her accident brought him glory and honor. But God gives us the command to also reprove our children, lest they bring us dishonor. How can we view the crippling of one woman as a just move by God but the spanking of a baby by a parent as cruel? This doesn't make sense to me. It seems, instead, that those who shun rod discipline instead have lost sight of what sin really is, that it isn't really their job to train rebellion out of their kids. It is a rare child that doesn't require rod discipline (like autistic children, perhaps).
Anyway, I don't know if I'm communicating this clearly or not. My head is swimming with thoughts on the matter. Basically, the Pearls are older than either you (Spunky) or myself, they are older in the Lord, their works have been proven good over time by the results they have achieved, and their teachings shouldn't be shunned simply b/c there is supposed confusion. To me, their writings seem crystal clear. With all due respect, maybe you're just looking too hard now for something to disagree with. Remember... "Whatsoever things are... pure... of good report.... [of] any virtue... " (Php. 4:8)
Many blessings,
Christi Waterman
posted by spunkyhomeschool on Apr. 14, 2006 at 11:58 AM
When we encounter a new believer, we don't say to them, "Don't read the Old Testament, because we live in an age of grace now, and much of it doesn't apply to us anymore." Instead, we let the new believer read their bible and let the Holy Spirit do the work of letting them know that blood sacrifices aren't necessary anymore, and that avoiding pork isn't necessary for righteousness, though it is still beneficial for healthfulness, etc. Also, we answer their questions and give our wisdom when necessary, but we don't tell them not to read their Bibles simply because they may interpret some OT laws thinking that they'll have to slaughter the family dog to gain forgiveness. That's assuming a lot on the ignorance of new believers and the inability of the Holy Spirit.
Not sure what all this means. The Pearls book is not the Bible. There are many books we should disregard because the small amount of truth is contained is not worth the confusion created. I don't put the Pearls book in necessary reading for successful parenting. While it may contain helpful ideas as I have stated, the confusion and potential problems that are created are not worth it.
I do believe that training with a tiny spank (Michael Pearl mentions that it be a small switch and that the spanks sting, not wound) can be appropriate for a 7-month old. Here's what I did with my 3rd-born child when he was 10-months old (now 3 and 1/2 yrs.) and wished I had begun earlier, but hadn't conceived of it or read their book:
The issue is not whether we think spanking a seven month old is wrong. The issue is Mr. Pearls lack of clarity on that point. It says that spanking a child at 7 months is too young. But then says that it is okay. This is confusing. That was my main point. We may disagree on whether it is appropriate or not but the lack of clarity in his answer leads a parent to confusing ideas about what the rod should be used for. I will not debate whether spanking a seven month old is appropriate. I have stated my opinion you have stated yours. You think it's right. I think it's wrong. Mr. Pearl however is somewhere in between. He says they are too young to be spanked but then says go ahead. Clear as mud.
Referring to your daughter you said:
She only thinks on those things b/c we have been consistent with the "rod and reproof"
I'm glad you have experienced the joy of wonderful children. My oldest is 17 and my youngest 2. I am experiencing the joy of children who love the Lord, love me, and love each other. I give glory to the Lord NOT the ROD for this occurence. As I said, in the post, there is a place for the rod but it should not replace the cross.
"For it is by grace we have been saved, through faith and this is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God so that no man shall boast."
My children's salvation, obedience to HIS word, and a joyful spirit is a gift from God. My boast is in the work of the Lord not my work not in a "rod and reproof".
When we give birth to a new little baby, we aren't just receiving a wonderful blessing and inheritance, but we are also raising a tiny, miniature sinner. We must keep in mind that our children are sinners and that it is our duty to train them up.
While I don't intend to get into all the theology, the Pearls do not believe that babies are born with sin at birth. Quoting from To Train Up A Child,
The self centeredness of infants and small children has all the appearnaces of a vice. But they are actin on natural, God-given impusles to meet their natural needs. They "go astray as soon as they beborn, speaking lies." (Psalm 58:3) Yet, God does not impute the lie to them as sin. God reckons them as if they had no moral character, and therore no responsibility. They do not possess the intellectual and moral maturity to say "No" to appetities. They cannot yet be held respnsible. They begin life in innocent self-centeredness.
So you see the Pearls believe a child is "innocent" at birth NOT a sinner. This affects their teaching. Because they believe a infant is NOT a sinner it is appropriate to condition the child toward the good. There is more material availabe on this but this is the crux of their theology.
It seems, instead, that those who shun rod discipline instead have lost sight of what sin really is, that it isn't really their job to train rebellion out of their kids.
I have not shunned the rod. My last sentence was quite clear. I said there was a place for the rod, but it should never replace the cross. So the idea that I have rejected the rod cannot be said of me.
To me, their writings seem crystal clear.
Did you understand what the Pearls believe about sin nature or lack there of in a child when you read To Train Up a Child? Many miss it. I know I did initially. The conditioning or training of children is built around this theology. You cannot understand one correctly without understanding the other.
With all due respect, maybe you're just looking too hard now for something to disagree with. Remember... "Whatsoever things are... pure... of good report.... [of] any virtue... " (Php. 4:8)
Ascribing motives to my actions is unjustified and unnecessary. My motives are to be a Berean and test what I have been taught against the word of God. I also seek to exhort those that God has placed in my sphere of influence to do the same. Nothing more.
The issue is not about me, or my age (I'm 43) it is about the work of a publshed author. Review and analysis by others is what we should all do. Measuring ourselves daily is what we read, see, hear, and do against the truths of God's Word.
That's all I am doing.
posted by spunkyhomeschool on Apr. 14, 2006 at 12:18 PM
In response to my reveiw of Created to be His Helpmeet, Rebekah Pearl responded with this statement,
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.
This small quote while not definitive does point to the idea that we don't have a "sinful nature" and that our natural reactions cannot be good.
You may view that as looking for the smallest of things to quibble about. But I think it is substantial. Doctrine matters. And when someone claims that children are born innocent but self-centered or that I have a problem with their writing because I believe in the sinful nature we are not talking about small insignifcant matters.
This doctrine permeates their books and it also leads to confusion and lack of clarity in their writing.
Some may be unaware, some may be willing to overlook it, but I cannot. And I plan on using the sphere of influence that God has allowed me to explain my thoughts. There are plenty of avenues to present other viewpoints. I am only one spot in a large medium.
posted by Momwtrmn on Apr. 14, 2006 at 12:56 PM
Wow... Your writing "feels" like you felt offended. Please don't take offense at my previous comments, if you have. You are my sister in Christ. And I am trying to discuss this accordingly. No offense has been meant.
[I am experiencing the joy of children who love the Lord, love me, and love each other. I give glory to the Lord NOT the ROD for this occurence.]
Of course, as do I give the glory to the Lord. It was not my understanding but the Holy Spirit's ministered to me and God's Word not mine that said "rod and reproof." I simply applied the exhortation, and am enjoying the rewards of the Lord. Glory is God's, not mine. Really, I don't believe or iterate otherwise.
[My children's salvation, obedience to HIS word, and a joyful spirit is a gift from God. My boast is in the work of the Lord not my work not in a "rod and reproof".]
"Rod and reproof" are God's exhortation to us. I was exactly boasting in His work, not mine. My work would be to talk them into becoming "good" people, but I can't. But when I apply His truth, in all aspects not just "rod and reproof," that's when I see the fruit of God's working grace through my feeble hands.
Babies are born sinners in much the same way sharks are born killers. Baby sharks haven't killed yet, but they will. Our infants haven't sinned yet, but they will.
[So the idea that I have rejected the rod cannot be said of me.]
I didn't say you shunned the rod. I said those that do. I even said that there is the rare child that doesn't need it, like autistics, perhaps. I read and understood what you wrote that there is a place for the rod, and I agree. I also agree that it shouldn't replace the cross. However, I don't think the Pearls replace the cross with the rod, either. I believe their advice on not "showing mercy" is mistaken too literally. The idea is not to let up until the good habit replaces the bad. That's all I got from it.
[Ascribing motives to my actions is unjustified and unnecessary.]
I looked it up to make sure I understood the nuance. Ascribe means to "give something as cause." I simply meant it as a possibility, nothing more. Like saying to my daughter, "Are you crying because you see blood or because it hurts?" My words were "maybe you're looking too hard..." Like, "Are the problems really there, or do you just think they are?" It's not meant to be offensive anymore than asking my child why she's crying is. You are my sister in Christ, and I'm trying to handle this in that manner.
Look, Spunky, you and I disagree on the Pearls, as you well know from our previous banterings. And that's ok. I just wanted to come on here and say,
"Hey... their writings are pretty good. They are chock full of useful, biblical teachings that have worked well for them. But, dear readers, be careful reading their writings just as you would be careful reading anyone else's. Read it. Listen to it. Pray on it. And seek Scripture. Just like all advice."
Many blessings, dear sister in Christ,
Christi
posted by homeiscool on Apr. 14, 2006 at 1:48 PM
Before I came to HSB, I had never even heard of the Pearls, or any books they have written, so I don't really have an opinion on them as people, parents, or writers for that matter.
I do, however have an opinion on human nature. It seems that we all want to find an 'expert'. Well, God is the only one. We should be using our Bibles more, and not someone else's (very loose) interpretation of it. Especially when they don't seem to be consistent in quoting Scripture, as it may be in this case. Even satan can quote the Bible. Now, I'm not comparing these people to satan, don't get me wrong, I don't even know them. But I do know human nature, and everyone who is human is flawed, and everyone who is human can be influenced by him. We tend to feel a little self-important when we gain quite a bit of knowledge on some subject or another, and that's when we get dangerous, thinking our own way is the best, losing our humility. Any time I read someone who thinks that their way is the best, and everyone else should be pitied, well, let's just say that's a BIG red flag (with horns)! Even the GREATEST of men we can think of realize that they are only human, and do not have all the answers. We must always point to the Way, the Truth, and the Life, not our own way.
I've got to rebut a previous post with this: My son is also 12, has never been spanked, and still has the gentle nature you speak of. He will confess even the simplest transgression right away, because it's on his heart. So, by anecdotal means anyway, we must conclude that something other than the 'rod' was responsible for the good behavior of our children. I would have to lean towards the upbringing in Christ, and a distant second, being home all day where they belong instead of being in Public School. At any rate, I do not believe that you can say without a doubt that your daughter's nature is thanks to her being spanked/switched.
Next, 'training' a 7-10 month old child in the way you speak of, is just that, it's 'training'. Like we would train a dog. I don't want that for my babies, thank you very much. I will treat my babies like the gifts from God that they are, not like I would treat a dog. Thankfully the Lord makes our children resillient.
Children of this tender age simply do not have the brain function yet to understand right and wrong, but they do understand "If I do that, I get hurt. I won't do that." Why in the world is that how we want to treat our most precious of gifts?? Instead, how about, "If I do that, Mommy moves me to another place so I can't see that thing anymore. That's no fun. I won't do that."
Until you know without a doubt that your child is willfully disobeying a direct request, or rule, there is no place for punishment. Consider this: The fabled 'child raised by wolves' is discovered. He comes to your house, and the first thing he does is pee on the living room carpet. Are you going to hit him? Or would you try to communicate to him about the toilet, what to do with it, and give him a few chances to get it right? Now, after he's been in your house a while, is learning English, knows the rules and has been following them, THEN he decides to pee on the carpet, maybe he deserves an explanation followed by a swat, but NOT before he has learned that it is wrong.
Let's assume a relative dies, and you are charged with raising her child. Would you spank this child without warning? Or would you tell them the rules of the household first? Well, our children are not our own, they are God's children, we are just stewards over them. We must train them in the Lord, and not exasperate them. Discipline comes in many forms, not just beatings. If we are to read Proverbs 13:24 completely literally, mustn't we assume that only boys must be disciplined? That's just silly, right? So just as we understand that 'he' means 'child', so we understand that 'rod' means 'discipline'. There may be an offense that deserves a stick to the behind. But there also are offenses that do not merit such harsh discipline.
Consider the 10-40 window, and all the remote tribes that have not yet been reached by the Gospel. Do you really think that God is just going to send them all to a firey eternity simply because they have not been told? Or do you think that a loving God would present Jesus Christ to them first, and give them a chance to either accept or deny him as their Savior upon their earthly deaths? What about all of our precious babies who pass on before they ever had a chance at life outside the womb?
Okay, maybe I'm getting a little too deep here on a Friday morning, but I just couldn't help myself. I see this discussion as much deeper than the merits of a couple of people who wrote some books.
Lisa
posted by spunkyhomeschool on Apr. 14, 2006 at 2:00 PM
No offense at any of what is taken. But you see clarity of writing is so important. Even in our little exchange you said I sounded a certain way. Thankfully we can go back and forth and clear up misconceptions. One of my major points of this whole post is that the writing lacks clarity. It is why you and I can come to such differing conclusions when reading the same thing. When you dealing with child training issues clarity is of the utmost importance. For the misinterpretation of the writing can bring about results not intended. Ann demonstrated that very well in her post at Choosing Home that I linked to.
I appreciate your admonition to seek the scripture and pray about all things written. Unfortunately, Mr. Pearls exhortation is quite different. He says that if I fail to see the wisdom of his concepts I am an unfit parent with children to be pitited. That is hardly an exhortation to study the scripture to determine if what he claims as "wisdom" is fundamentally biblical.
posted by spunkyhomeschool on Apr. 14, 2006 at 2:05 PM
Lisa,
You posted at the same time I did. Your thoughts are appreciated. Thanks for adding to the discussion.
posted by on Apr. 14, 2006 at 4:31 PM
Christi, one final thought.
Even if I were to grant all of the things we may disagree on, I cannot look past the advice Mr. Pearl gives to the woman whose husband is abusive. A man has no justification for hitting his wife. Yet, Mr. Pearl's conditional response to her is difficult to swallow. I'm not advocating divorce. However, a woman should not have to watch a clock or fear he'll repeat it to seek help. To a woman who has been hit, she needs to know in no uncertain terms that there is help available. And she has liberty to seek it immediately.
Is it okay to hit a woman as long as you don't leave a mark lasting over two hours?
What about a push against a wall?
What about a punch in the gut that leaves no outward mark?
What about a woman who is pregnant and thrown over the bed?
These are all examples of what I received in notes by woman who have suffered from an angry husband? Many followed the thinking of "no mark" no help. To increasing despair and turmoil. They believed that reverence and sex would remove his rage. Believing the lie that if they were more sensual he would be less angry.
A woman needs to know clearly that an abusive husband will be dealt with swiftly the first time. If we are to apply Mr. Pearl's teaching to the husband... the swift action to an infraction will do the miraculous. It will teach them to obey. And it will teach an abusive husband the same thing.
It is just this sort of inconsistent confusion and lack of clarity that highlights the Pearls writing.
Edited by spunkyhomeschool on Apr. 14, 2006 at 3:42 PM
posted by creativehsmom on Apr. 14, 2006 at 4:50 PM
I just finished reading the post on "Ann's Blog" and the comments thereafter. Last night I also read your post Spunky, along with the comments. I appreciate all of the time and prayer that has been given to these entries and the comments as well. Until recently, all I had read on the topic of the Pearls material had come from Bloggers in blogsphere who were quick to judge without prayerful assessment, all coated in obscenity's. I appreciate being able to read about this issue from a fair, speaking the truth in love, gentle perspective.
I am not much acquainted with the Pearl's or their material. I was handed one of the free issues several years ago by a friend. I browsed through some of the articles in the issue but ended up laying it aside after reading the advice given to a pastor's wife w/r to a 7 month old. At first Mrs Pearl gives some very good advice about using a special blanket and / or soft toy and even the soothing sound of a ticking clock and closes by referring to the womans husband. Mr Pearl then cautions against striking a 7 month old but several paragraphs later changes his tune. There is too much flippity floppity in the advice given. With all said above, and though Mrs Pearls advice was good, what is wrong with holding and comforting a crying baby? There is too much advice going around these days making parents feel guilty if they hold their crying baby/child too long, as though they will spoil or ruin them! The very fact that the only way a baby can communicate is through crying until they learn to form words should be caution enough, even for the first time parent. Why must we assume at that tender age it is a battle of the wills? I'm not sure when our memories begin to function with precision under a year old but I do recall being very small (under a year old) and on several occasions hearing my mother sing to me, rocking me in a rocking chair. I remember feeling queezy and cranky but my mother's gentle touch and voice was more the focus to me than my tummy. I was not battling with my mothers will, I did not feel good.
I am not accusing the Pearls of abusing babies, please don't misunderstand me but new parents and even seasoned parents sometimes feel very inadequate. The ability to clarify our biblical interpretations and the counsel we give needs to be on target when others ask for advice of this nature. Like Ann and others have said, we all have different backgrounds and experiences not to mention our temperaments so the "one size fits all" rod approach raised a lot of questions for me.
Even when our children are older, and can begin to tell the difference between right and wrong, don't we often learn from our mistakes? There are also varying degrees to be considered that call for various levels of creative teaching strategies. Sometimes just the natural consequences of wrong decision making can be a deterrent so long as it isn't life threatening.
I understand the context in which a previous commenter mentioned not treating a dog the same way as a child in reference to the Pearls when they compared dog training and child training somewhere in their material but permit me to show you why it's a good comparison. If I should ever attempt to strike my dog, she would shriek I'm sure. I know this because I have accidently stepped on her paw before and she wailed like the world was coming to an end. Why? Was she trying to manipulate me? Does my dog have the intelligence to do that? Or, did stepping on her paw really hurt? I think it really caused her pain and crying out is a natural reaction to pain. Could it be the same with children? Yes, it is not always a means to manipulate.
On page 5 of the free issue that I mentioned earlier, Mr Pearl refers to "pouting as an expression of anger, designed to control those at whom it is directed." Later he states "when parents organize and manage a child so that pouting is counterproductive, the child will take up smiling as a method of getting her way." Why is the later a desired outcome to the first? Because a smile looks better than a frown? I desire to see true God given joy in my children.
Will ultimate perfection in us or our children be realized this side of heaven? There are many lessons for us as parents along the way here and not just our children. Where would each of us be if it were not for His loving grace.
Ann sums it up here;
"You remind me that the Christian life is an active, daily warfare against sin. You whisper that my children and I must DAILY yield (Rom. 6:16), walk in (Gal. 5:16), put off and put on (Eph. 4:22-24), put away (Eph. 4:31), mortify (Col. 3:5), flee (2 Tim. 2:22), lay aside (Heb. 12:1; 1 Pet. 2:1). My children and I can daily live free of sin’s stranglehold — by walking in You!"
I will be praying for the Pearl's and for everyone affected by the latest happenings.
When considering child training advice, even if the counsel holds a PHD, we must remember it is still that, only advice and those giving it need to be cautious and very prayerful as well as the readers of *any* material. As Christians we must always give our Heavenly Father the final say, if we can't hear him well, ask again, re-read His Holy Word. Pray, ask and keep seeking His counsel.
In His love,
Cathy
posted by coveredwifeoftim on Apr. 14, 2006 at 6:13 PM
I can not imagine what that poor child must have gone through knowing that he was going to get switched all those days for a past sin. God forgives us for all our sins and He would never punish us like that.
I have TTUAC and CTBHH but I haven't finished reading either book. I guess because I was disagreeing so much with what I was reading that I just couldn't read anymore.
Thanks Spunky for posting this. It's so important for us parents to really pray and search the scriptures when it comes to disciplining our little arrows.
posted by hiplvmom2 on Apr. 15, 2006 at 1:30 AM
Bravo! Well written! Thank You for sharing your thoughts.....
Peace & Happiness,
Dana
posted by homeskoolmom on Apr. 15, 2006 at 6:49 AM
You have helped to define the the issues I have with the Pearl's. I couldn't quite put my finger on what wasn't quite "right". It seems that since TTUAC, they have become somewhat prideful and puffed up. I emailed them when dh and I were studying the headcovering issue and was very surprised at the curt, matter of fact, "my answer is the Biblical answer" response. While we have read their materials since that time, we have been more cautious.
posted by SusannahCox on Apr. 15, 2006 at 1:59 PM
Wow! This has generated a lot of comments. I'd like to add a couple of links that have helped me a lot regarding both parenting and the Pearls. I may even have gotten them via Spunky!
http://www.intent.squarespace.com/journal/2005/10/5/parenting-by-the-book.html#comment175001
and Michael's teachings on original sin (what Spunky referred to) analyzed here:
http://allthings2all.blogspot.com/2005/10/michael-pearl-on-original-sin-analysis_11.html
posted by spunkyhomeschool on Apr. 15, 2006 at 3:32 PM
Thanks Susannah for mentioning those links.
There are a lot of excellent comments here. There are also some more at
www.spunkyhomeschool.blogspot.com
that's my other blog.
posted by gottsegnet on Apr. 16, 2006 at 2:07 AM
"'Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it (Prov. 22:6)." Train up, not beat up. Train up, not discipline up. Train up, not educate up. Train up, not "positive affirmation" up."
Ironically, the original Hebrew used for "train up" is more closely related to "educate" than to the conditioning which these materials define as training. Other places in scripture, the same is word is translated as "dedicate" as in the case of buildings, and "initiate," as in the case of priests. While this theory of conditioning is central to the teaching in TTUAC, it is not directly supported by scripture unless you accept their reasoning from the placement of the Tree of Knowledge and their reworking of the meaning of the word "train."
I trained my daughter "no" withouth the use of a "rod." When she reached for something, I said "no" and then shook a little rattle. Not loud...not to scare her. But she likes her rattle and would turn to it immediately. And when she did, I smiled and praised her. And now when I say no, she turns away and crawls to me. I did not condition her for obedience. I taught her what I expected...that no means to turn away from an activity. And that there is reward in obeying.
I wholeheartedly agree that until the child is old enough to make a "choice" then the parents assume the responsibility. I don't agree with all they say in regards to moral accountability and all that...I found it a bit confusing. But in that, I draw an opposite conclusion. They are not responsible does not mean that I somehow condition them. In viewing that the parents have responsibility, I see that we need to restrict our child's access to things which might cause them harm until they are old enough to understand. To speak directly to one example provided in the book, I am not going to leave my infant alone in a room with a bookshelf that I feel is unstable. I am going to take the responsibility to make her enviornment safe, whether that means keeping her under my vigilant eye, or placing her temporarily in a playpen or crib until I can provide better supervision.
I am also uncomfortable with the way in which they describe the child. They describe the infant as lying, manipulative, conniving, calculating, and self-centered. The child is described thus: "His life is one of unlimited, unrestrained self-indulgence." This may or may not be true...I'm not sure. It is a theory I was taught in my child development courses in college...along with the lessons on conditioning and how rats could be conditioned to pound on little bars all day (the work of BF Skinner) and other theories about how the environment shapes the individual.
The verse they use to support this view (Psa 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb:, they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.) is taken out of context. I do not see justification for taking this verse and applying it universally to a child development theory. Scripture appears to have a different view of the child:
Mat 18:4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
posted by gottsegnet on Apr. 16, 2006 at 2:51 AM
sorry...my daughter I was referring to above was 9 months at the time. And she responds to no with joy. Odd. Some day she will realize she is missing out on something, I suppose. But right now she is so excited to just learn new things and explore everything. When my son was this age, he joyfully sat in time out anytime his older sister earned a time out because he was just excited to do be able to do anything she did. That's why modeling is so important : )