To brainwash a parent
When my first child was born, a woman I had known many years handed me a book. She told me it would be helpful as I raised my daughter as it had helped her train her own kids. That book? To Train Up a Child, by Michael and Debi Pearl.
It wasn’t a very long book—just the right size for a new mom to read in between feedings and changings. But still, something about the book didn’t sit right with me at that time and I never bothered to read it all the way through until later. Until five years later, when I had four kids between the ages of 0 and 5.
It was about this time I started keeping a blog, and when I finally got around to reading the book, you know what? My suspicions were confirmed. I was so saddened by what I read that I wrote about it and started a pretty significant discussion on what I perceived to be dangerous teachings the Pearls were presenting. There were many suggestions that seemed borderline abusive, but the most bewildering things was their likening of child training to that of training a mule:
“If you are just beginning to attempt to control an already rebellious child who runs from discipline and is too incoherent to listen, then use whatever force is necessary to bring him to bay. If you have to sit on him to spank him then do not hesitate. And hold him there until he is surrendered. Prove that you are bigger, tougher, more patiently enduring, and are unmoved by his wailing. Defeat him totally. Accept no conditions for surrender. No compromise. You are to rule over him as a benevolent sovereign. Your word is final.”
Unfortunately, some parents have taken this teaching to its very literal and fatal conclusion. Maybe you’ve heard of this tragedy already, but just last week 7-year-old Lydia Schatz was “disciplined” to death by her homeschooling parents, Kevin and Elizabeth. Her 11-year-old sister Zariah was also hospitalized for extensive injuries. The parents used the teachings of the Pearls to “train” their children, whipping their kids with a quarter-inch plumbing supply line—the very thing the Pearls suggest parents use.
There has been quite a bit of internet buzz about this, as well there should be. This is not the first time a parent has killed his or her child after following the parenting advice of the Pearls. Four years ago, 4-year-old Sean Paddock died after his mother wrapped him up so tightly in blankets he was unable to breathe.
When is enough enough? When are Christians going to call this what it is—abuse—and stop defending the teaching just because the Pearls claim them to be biblical truth? When are Christians going to stop blindly following garbage teaching and THINK?
Lynn Harris of Salon.com wrote:
“It’s one thing for those of us outside the fundamentalist Christian/Christian home-schooling world to point fingers at the Pearls and voice outrage at their methods. What really matters, and what stands to have actual impact, is the outrage inside the Pearls’ world. And right now, more than ever, an anti-Pearl movement within the conservative Christian community is rising up in heated, if sometimes whispered, fury. Some say—even pray—that Lydia Schatz’s death will bring Michael and Debi Pearl exactly the kind of attention they deserve.”
Indeed, it may be finally happening (See the blogs of Karen, Dana, Kathy, and Laurie), but at what price?
Elizabeth Esther, a Christian, writer, and mother of five, asks, “How many more children will die before the Christian community holds Michael and Debi Pearl to account?” She goes on to give the following analogy:
“Consider the current massive recall of Toyota cars. Do all Toyotas have the same fatal flaw? No. But the flaw is significant enough that drastic measures are being taken. Today, in fact, the CEO of Toyota is being critically questioned in a congressional hearing.
This is how I view the Pearls’ child-training methods. Sure, maybe some parents are able to safely ‘drive’ the Pearl model. But there is a significant flaw in the Pearl method and tragically, for at least two young children, it has proved fatal.”
Former MTW Ukraine missionary and homeschooling parent Alexandra Bush of TulipGirl fame offers these reasons why some families have not spoken out before:
“It is easy to filter out the harsher teachings, the extremism, when surrounded by word pictures of peaceful, loving, fun families. The Pearls seem to tell parents that they just have to ‘win’ once and make sure their children know who is in charge, and then they will never have to spank again. That’s how parents get sucked in—promises of a fun, peaceful home, minimal confrontation, doing the ‘right thing’ for their children. Basically, the BS detectors are turned off by the pretty promises that are made.”
It is time. Should the Pearls be held accountable in the death of Lydia Schatz? Legally, perhaps not, as they were not the ones standing over that child beating her to death. But should they be taken to task by the Christian community for their sketchy-at-best, fatal-at-worst teachings?
When are we going to cast these Pearls before swine?

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top290 Comments to “To brainwash a parent”
Never heard of these people which is sort of surprising since I have young kids.
Report comment to moderator
Wow. How very sad. I’m the parent of two toddlers (a year apart), and I am far from perfect, but I hope my parenting attitude is NEVER what appears to be presented there. If, as parents, we are supposed to show Christ to our children and present God as a Father, how does the Pearls’ view show God as a loving yet just Father? That seems to show Him more as a harsh, cruel God. I hope I always remember the grace and mercy shown to me by my Father when disciplining my own children.
Report comment to moderator
This seems like a useful cautionary message. No wonder I have encoutered children raised by conservative Christians who are very resentful of the treatment they received.
Report comment to moderator
If a controlled reasonable spanking doesn’t work you need to try something else. Elevating is dangerous.
May I recommend “Have a New Kid by Friday” by Dr. Kevin Leman.
Report comment to moderator
I have never read this book either. I do believe in spanking, however, this seems to go way beyond what I learned or did or would recommend. Just the few teachings presented horrify me. Read the gospels and how Jesus is portrayed. He tells us he is an exact representation of the Father. That is not what is shown in this writing.
The rod and staff bring comfort in Psalm 23. Something to think about.
Yikes! This is so sad.
Report comment to moderator
Never read the book, though I believe somebody mentioned it on here in the not too distant past. Cannot remember if it was a positive or negative mention and that person has not been around lately, I think. Throughout twenty plus years of homeschooling, never heard it discussed.
If their system is as presented, it is abuse.
There are many good books on child rearing, and many ways to get them raised well, as long as consistency is the backbone. This does not mean every child will make it well even when raised by consistent parents. Some children are evil (that is where adult evil people come from). But no parent need brutalize his child.
Report comment to moderator
I just hope these kind of extremes doesn’t bring about laws that interfere with parenting rights. You don’t hear so much about the damage done by extremes in the other direction. Children assaulting parents is on the rise and it has been shown that extreme permissiveness is a leading cause.
Report comment to moderator
You can add Growing Kids God’s Way to this book. I work in a co-op of many Christian kids. I can tell which ones were strictly raised “God’s Way”. By the time they are teens, they can’t think for themselves – the obedient ones are afraid to make their own decisions on assignments and projects for fear of being “out of line”. To truly make it through adolescence and assert their autonomy, they really have to rebel – always leading to so much pain and heartache for everyone.
Report comment to moderator
I have read the book several times, and while anyone can take anything to the extreme, the overriding message I have always taken is that a parent must be consistent, that training is an ongoing process, and that it is very important to continually tie the heart strings—to keep the bonds of love and fellowship strong between me as the parent and my children. At the same time, there are very clearly defined roles…I am not my child’s buddy. I have a responsibility to train my child into maturity.
I will agree that the concept of grace in the book seems to be lacking at times–and perhaps for someone who is looking for an excuse to abuse their children, To Train Up a Child may seem like blanket permission to be abusive. However, it is stated in the book that there is a huge difference between discipline and abuse.
We have used a rod to train our children—not to beat them into submission, but to teach them and correct them. Spankings are for two very specific behaviors: lying and direct, willful disobedience. The Pearls make the distinction between childish forgetfulness, silliness, and willful disobedience. And a spanking is not a beating. Spankings are akin to punishment, but to be used sparingly.
We pray with our children and comfort them before and after a spanking. It is much gentler and kinder than the hand that would strike out to discipline when I was a child—we never knew what would get us a spanking. When the rules shift, a child is fearful and abuse is more likely to happen.
Training with the rod is much gentler than it sounds. A light tap on the hand or leg or bottom—not even enough to hurt, but rather to get the attention of a toddler who is intent on his or her own agenda—is not abusive. We took our then 18 month old daughter camping with some friends. There was a 6’ retaining wall that elevated our campsite above the river running below…and a sheer drop-off to the rocky shore below. Our oldest child stood there at the wall with the rod—and every time our 18 month old put her foot on the wall, she was told “NO” and was given a very light tap on her bottom. After a few times she did not step foot on the wall again. Other families were constantly chasing their little children and bringing them back up to the top of the campsite because their children were endlessly fascinated with that rock wall. Our daughter knew her exact boundary and did not once cross it. We still kept an eye on her, but she was obedient. What is kinder—training a child to not go where it is dangerous, or constantly chasing a child who has no respect for the danger? Granted, our daughter was not old enough to understand the danger, but she respected the boundary she had been taught to obey.
I agree the Pearls’ teaching is not perfect….but they are not to blame when parents take a method and use it to justify abuse of their child. It’s like blaming gun manufactures when criminals shoot people, or blaming car manufacturers when people drive irresponsibly. To compare the teaching of the Pearls to the fiasco with Toyota is not a logical comparison.
Report comment to moderator
I have read TTUAC and Created to Be His Helpmeet by the Pearls. I subscribe to their newsletter and also read their website often, so am very familiar with their teachings about marriage and family. They helped to launch me into a place of real repentance and renewal in my Christian walk a year ago, after struggling with bitterness and depression. I found their literature insightful and refreshing.
After a time, however, I found myself asking the question “What would the Pearls say about this?” or “The Pearls would be so disappointed in me if they saw me now!” Their once enlightening teaching was becoming to me a snare of legalism and fear that I would fall short as a wife and parent. I have since sworn them off for me personally as I’m a Christian prone to legalism and perfectionism. It was becoming destructive emotionally to read such harsh teachings by adding guilt and condemnation to my already heavy conscience. Then a friend emailed the Salon.com article to me yesterday.
I think the Pearls have some wisdom in their teaching. But anything extrabiblical cannot be followed more than Scripture, and that’s easy to do with such philosophies as theirs. The truths they teach can serve a great purpose in giving wisdom to those of us still early in our parenting journeys, but some of their teaching can be dangerous when we forget the grace and mercy of Christ – especially in the lives of our young children.
Report comment to moderator
I had not heard about this but it is shocking. Isn’t raising our children a mixture of mercy, grace, guidance, direction, limits, and nurture?
Overly harsh treatment may produce obedient “fruit” on the outside, but yield a harvest of bitterness within. It is exactly in the teenage years when we often see an angry, hardened response. If we seek the heart of our children, we will be guiding their motivations as well as their actions. (Man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart.)
Another good book: Grace Based Parenting.
Report comment to moderator
This, as with other things, is simply putting something useful into the hands of bad people. The Pearls have helped many, many people over the years to overcome child-rearing problems. I brought up my child from birth using many of their teachings. Put a gun in a stupid person’s hand and you have a potential murderer. Put a child-training philosophy in a stupid person’s hand, you have a potential child abuser. Put the blame where it belongs, please. Just go to their site, you can see message upon message thanking the Pearls for their help. Not everyone thinks the same, and one can take or leave advice, but just because you don’t agree with something, doesn’t mean it’s bad or evil or wrong. Our tongues can be our worst enemy, please use it more wisely, in the future.
Report comment to moderator
Just looked at their website; book was published by their ministry and they claim 450K sold since 1994. Yet, though I’ve lived all over the country and moved in many Christian and homeschooling circles, I’ve never heard of them.
Spanking a child before they can understand why they’re being spanked is criminal in my opinion. And if you can’t get your message across in a few spanks, you need to move on to other tools.
Tragic for all involved.
Report comment to moderator
Never heard of this book and I bought enough parent books to choke a horse. My understanding through all of them was if you spanked, that was not the punishment. Spanking got there attention so the real discipline could start.
Report comment to moderator
Pastors and family ministry leaders need to be aware of legalistic parenting books like this one and help their church members avoid them. They need to be ready to offer books that promote a more gospel and grace centered way of parenting. I have yet to hear of a child who has been murdered by his parents due to these kinds of methods.
Another step would be to teach men and women to practice biblical discernment.
Report comment to moderator
New kid by Friday? Really? Sounds like the parenting equivalent of Get Rich Quick books. Asinine.
The parents of our church have found much help in Tedd Trip’s “Shepherding a Child’s Heart,” which is Gospel-centered, not violent, and not asinine.
Report comment to moderator
Publius, we have appreciated Tripp’s book too (as well as the teen one that follows SACH). Believe it or not, though, Tripp has also had some people tag his book as “controversial” because he does have a chapter on spanking in there too. Not quite as extensive as the treatment the Pearls have received, but some all the same.
Report comment to moderator
15. Publius, of course it took longer than Friday but it worked. At the time I didn’t need platitudes or a pep talk, I needed practical advice and that is what Dr. Leman gives.
Report comment to moderator
More about the individuals, Kevin and Elizabeth, will need to come out, under a microscope, which will probably have little to do with the Pearl folks.
I would expect, in the future, a far more detailed analysis by the appropriate departments.
This should be far more precise, than over-hyped reaction such as, “a movie or book or video game made ‘em do it.”
Report comment to moderator
I agree that it has to be much more than one book that made these parents do such a thing. The discussion about the books or theories is still a good one to have.
Report comment to moderator
The Pearls have been around for many years. For those years they have advocated others to beat their precious children into submission.
If someone told you to beat your child to please them, you would think them crazy, yet that’s just what your probably well-meaning friend is suggesting. You are the child’s parent and you are responsible for raising your child, not someone who cannot deal with other people’s imperfect children. Just as the Pearls testified Mrs. Paddock did not follow their instructions to protect themselves from prosecution, others will not accept blame when something terrible happens. Abusers never accept responsibility.
Children raised under constant threat of physical violence generally learn to cope with it in two different ways. Some come to see violence as a way to control everything in their world, mimicking their abusers. Others become submissive, afraid to say to do anything that might provoke their abuser. Ask yourself if that is what you want for you children. Or yourself.
It also tells little girls that being beaten is how the other people in their lives express their ‘love’ for them. Do you want your daughters seeking out partners who abuse them?
And, Mom, you get the carry the guilt and shame of having hurt your own children for the rest of your life because you listened to someone who isn’t responsible for your child allowing them to manipulate you into overriding your maternal instincts. It is not normal maternal instinct to harm your child, but to protect them for those who would harm them.
Report comment to moderator
“A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)” (1Ti 3:2-5)
Report comment to moderator
I’ve definitely heard of them, and what I’ve heard doesn’t incline me to like them. Whether I’d heard them praised or lambasted, I don’t remember. (I have some relatives who will praise something, and I take their praise of it as a strong caution against it. In one case, the relative is a conspiracy theorist and hardline on nearly everything–KJV only, home school only, etc.–not just that this is the best option, but that it is the only possible holy option. The books he recommends tend to be equally over the top, so I’m pleasantly surprised on really rare occasions when I like an author after hearing this relative praise him.) At any rate, my point is that these authors are very well known, if controversial, in the most conservative Christian circles.
I personally think Tedd Tripp is a little strong on spanking too–using it in too many situations, and possibly sometimes too harshly. I haven’t read his every word on the subject, but that’s my impression. But he isn’t in the Pearls’ league, in my opinion. The Pearls strike me (bad use of words, maybe) as those who would advocate “breaking a child’s will,” which always strikes me as a horrid concept.
Report comment to moderator
This is a terrible, terrible tragedy. Are adults/parents not responsible, though, for what they allow themselves to get “sucked in” to?
If someone tells me that Toyota is the greatest car around, am I not responsible to do some research on my own? If I buy a Toyota and have a crash due to a “fatal flaw”, is it my recommending friend’s fault? Sure, that friend may feel some responsibility, but ultimately, I bought the car.
Report comment to moderator
Add me to the list of homeschooling moms who have never heard of them until now. I can’t imagine the negative results had I used their methods. My son has such a love of learning that could have been quenched if he had been harshly punished. He did receive some spankings when younger but never anything extreme. More to get his attention as another commenter said. Once when he left a toy out that he had been told to put away I told him the toy would be put in the trash. He asked for a spanking instead and I knew I had confirmation that my spankings had never been overboard.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl, Dobson says break the will not the spirit.
Report comment to moderator
“But should they be taken to task by the Christian community for their sketchy-at-best, fatal-at-worst teachings?
When are we going to cast these Pearls before swine?”
Megan, how do you suggest that the Pearls should be taken to task?
Report comment to moderator
And was there the prescription of psychotropic meds EVER in the background of Kevin and/or Elizabeth?
Report comment to moderator
#28, a good point.
Report comment to moderator
I have had the Pearl’s book for a long time now. The book is about loving, training and disciplining children. Spankings have been around for a long time. Long before the Pearls wrote their book.
If parents choose to abuse their children and kill them, it is because they did not love their children. Rather they hated their children and wanted them dead. They could have mental illness.
Some blame their parents. Some blame authors. Some blame the devil. The blame belongs on the perpetrators of the crime.
Report comment to moderator
Here is a link to their site, which includes the introduction and first chapter (scroll down): http://www.gospeltruth.net/children/pearl_tuac.htm
It seems to me that there is a lot of good here, but it would depend on the parents’ attitudes, among other things. Today nearly all parents I observe are really being controlled by their children, which isn’t safe or healthy for the children, and is a shirking of parental duty. I don’t like the idea of parents using “military” discipline on children. But neither do I like to see parents who seem to be begging their children to please consider getting out of the street, and I’ll give you a piece of candy if you do. Both extremes seem wrong to me. But read the text from the link and see what you think.
Report comment to moderator
The Pearls writings teach a form of sinless perfection that results in warped ideas about training and forming children. In fact, in my research I came across something that said Michael has declared that he has achieved it. But here’s are a few excerpts from TTUAC.
“The parent holds in his hand (in the form of a little switch) the power to absolve the child of guilt, cleanse his soul, instruct his spirit, strengthen his resolve, and give him a fresh start through a confidence that all indebtedness is paid.”
The switch doesn’t cleanse a soul, CHRIST does. He paid for our sins, we aren’t forced to pay for each one with a beating. We only need to repent and believe. The same goes for our children.
“The guilt burdened soul cries out for the lashes and nails of justice. Your child cannot yet understand that the Creator has been lashed and nailed in his place. Only the rod of correction can preserve his soul until the day of moral dawning.”
Where does the bible teach that? From the lips of infants God has ordained praise. They understand far more than we comprehend that they do. We spoke about Christ’s sacrifice for them to our girls from birth and they have always talked about it, understood it (from young 2s.)
“Let the guilt come, and then, while they are yet too young to understand, absolve it by means of the rod. When their time comes, the principles of the cross will be easy to grasp.”
Again, the rod does not absolve guilt. My goal when my children disobey is not to punish them, but to bring them to true repentance. Spanking can actually be more a hindrance than a help in that end, because if you are doing it the way Pearl suggests, you continue to spank until they are repentant. When I was a child, I learned quickly to fake it to make the spanking stop.
Report comment to moderator
Kristen S.’s comments make it sound like ultimately a theological problem, and a serious one.
Pondering this some more . . . in the chapter I read, they refer to the potential for training a dog to perfect obedience, and the example they give is seeing eye dogs. If you can train a mere dog to such perfect obedience, they assert, how much more a child? That raises one obvious issue, in that we aren’t beasts.
But I think there’s another serious problem there too (and probably some more): First of all, in my understanding only about 10% of the dogs selected to be seeing eye dogs actually graduate from the program. (It’s possible the numbers are higher today.) And that would be only after selecting dogs that are likely to be appropriate–breeds that have worked in the past, for example, and dogs that seem to be the right temperament and intelligence from within those breeds. In other words, if you try to train a chihuahua to be a seeing eye dog, you’ll only end up frustrated. A beagle wouldn’t do a good job, either. It’s not as simple as deciding what you want the dog to do and making him do it. And in this military-style parenting, it seems to me that there isn’t much more room to see how God has actually gifted your child and rear him accordingly. One child will be an artist, one a writer, one a lawyer, one a bricklayer, one a mother–do you really want to take all those children and tell them which toys to play with, and then see the child who is inclined that way play happily with those toys, but the ones who aren’t seem like they’re being rebellious? I was a bookworm child; expecting me to spend the day building with bricks, or playing soccer, would not have trained me well for adulthood.
And ultimately, of course, we are training children for their relationship with God. This military-style training, breaking children’s wills to mold them to your own, risks bringing them in line with your own sinfulness rather than God’s holiness. The good parent doesn’t ultimately desire unthinking obedience. (Even the owner of a seeing-eye dog needs more than that. If you tell the dog to sit and the dog sees a car that has jumped the curb and is headed toward you, you need a dog that will “disobey” and pull you out of danger.) The two-year-old shouldn’t ponder and decide whether to obey Dad this time; but the fifteen-year-old should be able to list some biblical reasons for his actions and not just do robotic obedience; and the twenty-five-year-old had sure better be able to make his own decisions.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl, the link in #31 isn’t the Pearl’s website (they’re just selling the TTUAC book); the Pearl’s website is http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for the clarification, Juliana. I googled the name of the book and that site came up as containing some text, and I didn’t really look to see who hosted it, though I assumed it was the Pearls.
Report comment to moderator
It’s definitely ultimately a theological problem. Three things specifically:
1.) The Pearls have an false view of the nature of God. We parent according to our belief about what sort of Father God is to us. If we believe He is hovering over us with a piece of plumbing tubing around his neck, just waiting for us to trip up, that’s how we’ll parent.
2.) They teach an incorrect doctrine of authority and dominion. Dominion, as the Bible presents it, implies care, nurture and a responsibility to protect. God gave man dominion over the world in the Garden, which meant he was to “husband” it: to tend, improve and care for it. The same principle applies to training children.
3.) They have an incorrect understanding of the purpose of discipline. Michael Pearl discourages hugging a child following discipline. He views discipline more as behavior modification and a display of authority. This is perhaps the most dangerous teaching of all. Contrarily, in Scripture, God disciplines His people in order to sanctify them and to restore them to full fellowship with Himself.
4.) The methods the Pearls and many of their followers advocate are based on fear: teaching your children to fear you in a way that has nothing to do with the way we are told to fear God. It’s also the result of parenting motivated by the fear of losing our children to secular culture. The fruit of parenting by faith (that our children belong to God and that He doesn’t lose what is His) and just kindness (as God our Father does) looks much different.
Any one who teaches should be held to a higher standard, and so I wouldn’t say the Pearls have zero responsibility in these cases. But ultimately it is the responsibility of parents to test what they’re taught and to use wisdom in applying it.
Report comment to moderator
Oops–four, actually!
Report comment to moderator
36. But did any of those cause this death?
Report comment to moderator
“When are Christians going to stop blindly following garbage teaching and THINK?”
I’ve nothing to add.
Report comment to moderator
You act according to what you believe.
Report comment to moderator
I think if someone told me to sit on my child, I’d think they were crazy and wouldn’t listen to them at all.
Report comment to moderator
NJL, I’ve had to do it. You do what you have to keep a child from hurting themselves or you or someone else.
Report comment to moderator
21-Good comments
“the BS detectors are turned off by the pretty promises that are made.” I would add that the promises or the “teaching” has to be offered by a guru of sorts; heaven forbid that we think for ourselves, and stop overriding those maternal/wifely instincts that God gives us to protect life. Those instincts could even come in handy when it comes to protecting our kids from abusive fathers/husbands.
Report comment to moderator
Actually,
I have come across numerous biblical citations that liken Michael Pearl’s teachings to that of the anti-christ because they steal up children’s souls with violent dominance before they have a choice or are aware, right from infancy they are dominated into submission with pain. Remember, the anti-christ fools people into worshipping him as God. Michael Pearl tries to give people the illusion that they can control completely like God and they can be God-like and “sit as God.” Once his obedient souless minions are in place and fully obedient to him he can denounce the religion that got him power, just like the Bible predicts.
Report comment to moderator
NJL, when I had foster kids, one of my rules was that when a kid kicked me, punched me, or scratched me, she lost use of that limb for three minutes. One of the kids learned quickly and would patiently let me hold onto the offending limb; the other would involve a second and then a third, and “lose” them all. Then I found out I wasn’t “allowed” to restrain the children in any way. Considering that their tendency was to kick, scratch, bite, spit, throw things, etc., and considering I wasn’t allowed to spank, some such restraint was really necessary. Apparently if I had been licensed to take care of difficult kids, they’d have trained me in how to restrain them if necessary. But instead they gave me difficult kids who needed restraint, and no “tools” to discipline them effectively. (But they had never told us in training that we weren’t allowed to restrain them, so maybe it was an issue of “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” I didn’t know I wasn’t allowed to do it until I asked how to do it more effectively.) It really is sometimes necessary to restrain kids for their safety and that of the household.
I figured it was better if they were doing these things to me rather than each other or the dog. If I’d found out before they left that I wasn’t allowed to restrain them, I honestly don’t know how I would have kept them from hurting each other. I could at least put the dog outside if they hurt her, but if one was determined to hurt the other, and I wasn’t allowed to hold the angry one, I don’t really know how I would have kept them from tearing up my house or hurting each other, or hurting me more than they did.
Report comment to moderator
this article is totally out of context. If you want to blame someone who abuses their child as the reason the homeschooling movement is faulty, homeschooling is therefore evil and should be banned. How ludicrous! There are many people I know who have taken the main themes of the Pearls teaching which I thought as “you are the parent-act like it. Don’t let children control your family and what you have deemed as God’s way for your family.”
Many parents think their children should be the center of the family and control everything the grown adults do. How odd since we attribute wisdom with experience and judgement; Both of which little children do not have. The “growing Kids God’s way” teaching is the same as what I have attributed the Pearls to having. You are the parent- act like it. Make good judgments for your family and how it should be run.Love your children with resolve and purpose not whim and reaction. Love them by purposing to meet their needs emotionally, physically and spiritually.
Report comment to moderator
46. Most reasonable parenting books teach the same things
Report comment to moderator
Exactly. You can get common sense advice from much better sources. There is no need for anyone to be promoting or recommending the Pearls or their ilk.
Report comment to moderator
Two comments:
#1. The words “Defeat him totally. Accept no conditions for surrender. No compromise.” are, taken alone, extemely dangerous words. If taken literally, such severe actions seemingly could break a child’s spirit.
#2. Including the word “homeschooling” in describing the parents, looks like a totally unjustified slam at those parents who home-
school their child/children. In fact, that word causes me to wonder if Megan is a school teacher or school administrator – who all too often think that only they can teach a child.
Report comment to moderator
Rondu – Have you read any of my other posts? I assure you, I’m a homeschooling parent. I have the book stash and laundry pile to prove it…
Report comment to moderator
Why then the word?
Report comment to moderator
I wanted to the critique to come from another homeschooling parent.
Report comment to moderator
Okay, I understand.
Mea culpa; my apologies!
Report comment to moderator
Most reasonable parenting books teach the same things
What is “reasonable?”
Report comment to moderator
I’d never heard of the Pearls before reading this piece either – and did not know that the parents who recently killed one daughter and severely injured another utilized these specific (awful) methods. I hope the judicial system holds them accountable to the fullest extent of the law for the unspeakable things they did. HOWEVER, the fact that they homeschooled is irrelevant to the situation and, therefore, should not even be mentioned, let alone camped on. We homeschoolers have a hard enough time overcoming people’s stereotypical thinking about what we do; we do not need to be lumped in with child abusers. Again, if homeschooling were relevant to the situation, that would be one thing, but these parents could (and surely would) have done just what they did regardless of where their children were educated.
Report comment to moderator
Tina, the Pearls were in the leading edge of the homeschooling movement. Thus, it is very relevant to the story, even if it’s unfortunate. One doesn’t avoid mentioning the denomination of an abusive parent or another person in sin because you are in the same denomination and it can make you look bad. It’s the reality of who the Pearls are, and homeschooling parents have a choice of covering for them or denouncing the excesses.
Report comment to moderator
Homeschooling IS a compounding factor in some abusive situations, and it is not irrelevant to this case. These children did not spend a lot of time with other children and adults according to those that knew them, they thought of the way they disciplined as normal according the DA prosecuting the case. Homeschooling CAN be used to cloister children in unhealthy ways, even if it is used by the vast majority of parents in healthy, lovely and admirable ways.
Report comment to moderator
“..they thought of the way they disciplined as normal according the DA prosecuting the case..”
#56
Was the DA provided that “they thought..normal” statement by the defense attorney?
Would the defense attorney attempt to shift blame to the Pearls to see a sentence reduction?
Report comment to moderator
DA is commonly an abbreviation for District Attorney, the prosecutor. I read it somewhere the last few weeks, that in interviewing the children they described the sort of spankings that lead to Lydia’s death as commonplace in their home.
Report comment to moderator
What a horrible thing for those poor children. What a nightmare for the Pearls. People who don’t know anything about the Pearls & their methods should be careful what they say. They might find themselves breaking the 9th commandment (Thou shalt not bear false witness…..)
I have read many of their books, including TTUAC, have read every one of their newsletters since they first began sending them 15 years ago, and have also read every child training book mentioned in the blog here. I try to learn something from each one. After I began to try the Pearls’ philosophy I began to get comments from friends, neighbors, and teachers. Here are a few;
“Look how responsive he is!” from a delighted teacher
“Look how happy those children are, I’ll be they’ve never been spanked even once.” in the grocery store. LOL
“You manage your children so well, you should have a dozen.” from a friend.
“She sure does know how to talk, doesn’t she?” from a nurse.
“Well,they are certainly very well mannered!” from my mother-in-law who believed we were ruining our children by homeschooling.
“But they seem so happy!?!” Accompanied by a confused expression after church while I am trying to explain how I get my kids to sit still in church.
This blog reminds me how easy it is to twist and distort what people say, and to jump to conclusions. The Pearls say one thing, people hear something else. Even the Bible has been used to justify child abuse. People are so stuck in their own universe, that they just can’t fathom anything different from their own experience. 98% of you all don’t have a clue what you are talking about, and saying these things about these people with so little knowlege of them or their teachings could be called slander. The Pearls’ books and writings are CONTINUALLY accompanied with warnings and and cautions against using their teaching to justify abuse.
Here’s my last quote;
“We are not breaking a bad dog, we are nurturing a tender developing plant. If you become nervous, anxious and irritable, you will damage the delicate fruit. Children must be handled with kind, patient, loving hands”–Mike & Debi Pearl
Maybe you all should do a little research before you wag your tongues so freely. Megan, I think you owe the Pearls an apology. You should not print things, even opinions, with so little effort to get the facts straight! The Pearls are kind, generous people, who don’t deserve this kind of abuse,
–R
Report comment to moderator
I, too, was given this book once upon a time, and while a very small part of it was helpful, much of it made me uncomfortable. When I read the Psalm that says “Your rod and your staff comfort me,” it leads me to wonder just how comforting it is to be “tapped” or struck with it. Discipline should guide and lead a child to adulthood out of love and respect, not fear and anger. As with any advice, we need to filter it through God’s Word, and check the spirit with which it’s given. I do feel, though, that the blame of abuse rests with mostly parents who read the book, not the authors. It should be a caution to all of us when giving out advice.
Report comment to moderator
“Maybe you all should do a little research before you wag your tongues so freely.”
Rossignol, your “ALL” was pretty inclusive.
Report comment to moderator
I have done my homework with the Pearls. Read their books and newsletters. I am a mother of seven who has homeschooled. The Pearls are a very dangeous pair. While they quote “Thy rod and thy staff they comfort me” they brook no chastening themselves. Michael is a very proud man who thinks his thoughts are all God given and thus any exhortation is wave away as ignorant. What is happening on their farm is becoming cultish.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you for writing about this tragedy. How many more little girls need to die?
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Rossignol,
I posted quotes from TTUAC that disturbed me and responded to them in comment 32, and someone else also documented theological concerns with the Pearls around comment 35. One doesn’t need to read everything they’ve ever written to interact with what they’ve said or to have deep reservations about them.
They may speak about being delicate, but at the same time, they say to not hug your children after a spanking and show love to them when they are lovable. I am modeling my parenting after God the Father and his love is nothing like that. He is abounding in steadfast love. When we deserve it the least, he shows us he unfailing love and pursuit of us.
For the record, I get all those same compliments about my children, who have never been spanked with switches, glue sticks, plumbing line, wooden spoons, etc. Someone who works with young children told me my daughter was the kindest five year old she’s ever known. They love church, they beg to do the catechism. I still have a long way to go in parenting but I am encouraged that my children show a deep understanding of grace and repentance at a young age and a desire to honor God.
Report comment to moderator
The mere mention of using plumbing supply line to hit a kid should tell you something — and it’s nothing good. You don’t even have to take a biblical approach to this one.
Report comment to moderator
I would find it difficult to believe that Megan had not done any research before posting her column.
Report comment to moderator
Using a glue stick (#66) as a spanking tool strikes me as very odd.
Report comment to moderator
The big glue sticks from glue guns are popular with parents of young toddlers.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you for speaking out about this case. The more Christians who publicly hold the Pearls ministry accountable for their doctrinal errors and extreme and harsh child “training” advice, the better. In my experience, the more of the source material I read from TTUAC and No Greater Joy, the more disturbed I am by it.
Report comment to moderator
Hopesprings, in the South “you all” simply means you guys or you people. It’s not meant to be taken as absolutely everybody.
GlowingGirl – I understand that sometimes correcting a child can make you feel uncomfortable, even a mild correction can be difficult. I had those feelings too. But the whole point of the book, is that if you start early with mild corrections with the goal of achieving a cooperative spirit, the child’s behavior won’t get to the point where you might be tempted to use anger or violence against the child.
–R
Report comment to moderator
kristens,
Yes. DA = District Attorney
My question was whether the DA was supplied that answer from the attorney defending the accused. Thus, the defense argument would be already strategically prepared.
Report comment to moderator
Two web sites that can add quite a bit to this conversation are Susan Lawrence’s
http://Stoptherod.net
And an interview with Susan
http://www.beliefnet.com/Love-Family/Parenting/2005/02/Sparing-The-Rod.aspx?p=1
Note that Susan has moved on and no longer crusades for the end to this kind of horror, but the information at her website is still valid.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer – This NOT about “hitting” kids with the “evil” plumbing supply lines. My kids like to play with them. They have “sword fights”, blow bubbles in the bathtub or sink, and build things with them. With a litte care they don’t hurt much and don’t bruise. Typically all my kids get is an occasional little tap on the elbow or the back of the leg mostly for the littler ones when they won’t listen. Works better than screaming. I now have 3 big, burly teenage boys with all the raging testosterone and aggression, and a husband who is far away fighting terrorists in the Middle East. I have friends with 1 or 2 sons and a husband present in the home who have more difficulty than I do managing their children. Even though they are now twice my size, my sons respect my authority and understand that I am in charge. A friend who babysat for me used to say that all 5 of my children together were easier to manage than 1 or 2 from other families she knew.
You may think that you know more than God does on this subject, but here is what He says anyway, in case you care to listen;
“He who spares his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him diligently.” Proverbs 13:24
Report comment to moderator
Rossignol: “GlowinGirl-I understand that sometimes correcting a child can make you feel uncomfortable, even a mild correction can be difficult. I had those feelings too. But the whole point of the book, is that if you start early with mild corrections with the goal of achieving a cooperative spirit, the child’s behavior won’t get to the point where you might be tempted to use anger or violence against the child.”
You’re right; discipline is uncomfortable, but their brand of discipline felt wrong in my spirit. I have not used such extreme measures as rods to strike my children or refuse to hug them after discipline when they often need it most, but I do discipline them (including a very occasional swat when necessary). What made me squirm was the spirit of the book. It felt harsh and unloving — teaching and training your child is a necessary, loving thing to do. But my children (10 and 7 year-old boys) are well-behaved without beatings (although imperfect as am I), and my 1 year-old daughter is in training toward safe and good behavior as well. But parenting is more than manners; it’s building relationships and pointing them to Christ. I didn’t feel comfortable in using most of their suggestions toward my goal of raising my children in the Lord.
Report comment to moderator
Rossingol, this line (I assume directed toward NJL, or was it all of us?) is unnecessary and offensive: “You may think that you know more than God does on this subject, but here is what He says anyway, in case you care to listen”
Nobody on here is speaking out against God. Some are speaking out against the teaching of mortal human beings, with quotations to back up the issues with which we have a problem.
Report comment to moderator
Those poor children! What a needless tragedy.
I’m not married or a parent, but the advice quoted from the Pearls doesn’t sound good to me. My mom tried reading Debi Pearl’s book Created to be His Helpmeet once, and couldn’t finish it. The tone of the book turned her off; it had too little grace, basically.
I don’t deny the testimonies of those who feel that the book has helped them. Some people are be able to “drive” the Pearls’ model, to borrow the analogy from the woman quoted in Megan’s post. But that doesn’t erase the theological and practical errors.
Report comment to moderator
Belle, I went to the first link you gave but didn’t click any of the links on it, since it looks pretty over the top. If I’m not mistaken, she’s simply against spanking, period. That is in itself an “extreme” position; the anti-spanking mindset hasn’t been a good thing for our culture. The line against abuse isn’t a line against proper spanking; it’s a line against abuse. They’re different things.
Report comment to moderator
The Pearls aren’t the only ones in the homeschooling community who advocate physical abuse as a type of discipline.
http://www.thatmom.com/?p=3843
Report comment to moderator
74. This lady sounds like a nut to me. Some of her criticism of Lisa Whelchel’s book is hilarious.
Report comment to moderator
79 – Exactly.
Again, I’m not a parent, but IMO, spanking should only be done on the buttocks and shouldn’t leave a bruise. These kids had bruises on their legs, buttocks and back!
I was a pretty good kid, but occasionally I did get spanked. Out of those various occasions, though, I only remember one of them, and even then I don’t really remember the spanking itself; I remember the bad feeling beforehand, knowing I had done wrong; and the reconciliation afterward.
Report comment to moderator
KristenS — Here is what you said
“The Pearls writings teach a form of sinless perfection that results in warped ideas about training and forming children. In fact, in my research I came across something that said Michael has declared that he has achieved it. But here’s are a few excerpts from TTUAC.”
—————————————————————
WHERE DID HE EVER TALK ABOUT SINLESS PERFECTION? GIVE ME A QUOTE. HE NEVER SAID THAT. HE SIMPLY HAS HIGHER STANDARDS THAN MOST, JUST LIKE AN OLYMPIC ATHLETE DOES. EVEN OLYMPIC ATHLETES ARE NOT PERFECT, BUT THEY CAN GIVE THE APPEARANCE OF PERFECTION.-R
—————————————————————-
“The parent holds in his hand (in the form of a little switch) the power to absolve the child of guilt, cleanse his soul, instruct his spirit, strengthen his resolve, and give him a fresh start through a confidence that all indebtedness is paid.”
The switch doesn’t cleanse a soul, CHRIST does. He paid for our sins, we aren’t forced to pay for each one with a beating. We only need to repent and believe. The same goes for our children.
—————————————————————
THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE ISSUES HERE. SURE, THE BLOOD OF CHRIST ABSOLVES US FROM ALL SIN AND EARNS US A PLACE IN HEAVEN, BUT IF A MAN ROBS A BANK AND KILLS A FEW PEOPLE IN THE PROCESS, THE POLICE WON’T LET HIM OFF THE HOOK BASED ON HIS BELIEF IN CHRIST. HE STILL OWES A DEBT TO SOCIETY THAT COULD COST HIM HIS LIFE. WHEN A CHILD COMMITS A CRIME SUCH A SHOPLIFTING, MANY TIMES THE CHILD WILL BE RELEASED TO HIS PARENTS FOR CORRECTION, THAT IS THEIR JOB, AND MAYBE HAVE TO DO COMMUNITY SERVICE. IT WOULD BE A WONDERFUL THING FOR THE PARENTS TO BRING THIS CHILD TO CHRIST, BUT IN THE MEANTIME THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME REAL LIFE DISCIPLINE. THERE IS THE SPIRITUAL REALM AND THE REAL WORLD. IN THE REAL WORLD YOU HAVE TO PAY YOUR BILLS, WORK HARD, AND LIVE RESPONSIBLY OR PAY THE PRICE. IT IS THE PARENTS DUTY TO CORRECT AND DISIPLINE THEIR CHILDREN. -R
—————————————————————
“The guilt burdened soul cries out for the lashes and nails of justice. Your child cannot yet understand that the Creator has been lashed and nailed in his place. Only the rod of correction can preserve his soul until the day of moral dawning.”
Where does the bible teach that? From the lips of infants God has ordained praise. They understand far more than we comprehend that they do. We spoke about Christ’s sacrifice for them to our girls from birth and they have always talked about it, understood it (from young 2s.)
“Let the guilt come, and then, while they are yet too young to understand, absolve it by means of the rod. When their time comes, the principles of the cross will be easy to grasp.”
Again, the rod does not absolve guilt. My goal when my children disobey is not to punish them, but to bring them to true repentance. Spanking can actually be more a hindrance than a help in that end, because if you are doing it the way Pearl suggests, you continue to spank until they are repentant. When I was a child, I learned quickly to fake it to make the spanking stop.
—————————————————————
ANY DISCERNING PARENT WILL KNOW WHEN REPENTANCE IS BEING FAKED. THE PEARLS DO NOT SAY TO BEAT A CHILD TIL HE SAYS HE IS SORRY. THEY ARE JUST CONCERNED THAT A CHILD BE BROUGHT TO A REPENTANT STATE OF MIND WHEN HE IS IN TOTAL REBELLION. I HAVE SEEN THIS TRANSFORMATION. ONE OF MY SONS CAME TO ME CRYING WHEN HE WAS YOUNGER BECAUSE HE WAS SUFFERING FROM GUILT BECAUSE HE HAD BEEN STEALING CANDY FROM THE CUPBOARD. I REASSURED HIM OF CHRIST’S FORGIVENESS, AND THEN CALMLY GAVE HIM A FEW SWATS WITHOUT ANY ANGER. TO HIM IT SEEMED AS THOUGH A GREAT WEIGHT HAD BEEN LIFTED OFF HIS SHOULDERS. HIS GROUCHY DISPOSITION DISAPPEARED AND HE BECAME CHEERFUL AND AFFECTIONATE. HE WAS TRULY REPENTANT AND COMPLETELY TRANSFORMED. BLESSINGS -R
Report comment to moderator
Michael Pearl claims to live a sinless life and to be able to teach others to live sinlessly. Here are two direct quotes from his newsletter (”Living Parallel Lives in the Same Space”, No Greater Joy, Jan.-Feb. 2005):
I am not being religious when I offer this solution. There is a way provided by God that has nothing to do with “knowing and loving yourself, forgiving yourself, being comfortable with ‘the me inside this skin,’ releasing your joy.” It is the absolutely supernatural deliverance from all sin by the resurrection power of The Man Christ Jesus.
I have been preaching and living this gospel of sanctification for many years. It is not a theory. It is practical, Scriptural reality. I preach it in the prisons, and it works on men who have lived lives of total addiction and enslavement. They come up to me all the time, bubbling over with joy, and tell me that they are now free from all sin. I have followed them when they get out, and I can put you in touch with sons of Adam who are now Sons of God walking in complete victory over sin and self.
Report comment to moderator
CHERYLD. RE; “Rossingol, this line (I assume directed toward NJL, or was it all of us?) is unnecessary and offensive: “You may think that you know more than God does on this subject, but here is what He says anyway, in case you care to listen”
Nobody on here is speaking out against God. Some are speaking out against the teaching of mortal human beings, with quotations to back up the issues with which we have a problem.”
————————————————————
I WAS RESPONDING TO NJLAWYER, BUT ANYONE IS FREE TO JOIN THE DISCUSSION. NJLAWYER DID SAY “You don’t even have to take a biblical approach to this one.” WHAT KIND OF APPROACH SHOULD WE TAKE THEN?
Report comment to moderator
For some reason, I understood NJLawyer to mean that you don’t need the Bible to tell you not to use plumbing line. I don’t think she was advocating not to go by the Bible.
Report comment to moderator
One problem with this “spank till they’re repentant” line: You may be spanking a child who doesn’t deserve a spanking. No parent is perfect. I can remember a time or two when I was spanked for something I hadn’t done, and my crying afterward was from a broken heart as much as from pain. My parents followed the Pearls’ principle (before the Pearls had it) of spanking again if the child doesn’t stop crying fast enough. So, I was crying harder than usual from a spanking because I was crying from sadness at being spanked, and in pain, when I didn’t deserve the spanking. I was a compliant child; I wasn’t crying to make my parents feel bad. And when I’d be told, “Stop crying now, or we’ll give you something to cry about” (meaning another spanking), I’d swallow my tears quickly, and rarely if ever got that threatened second spanking. But had I been a rebellious child, I could have been spanked all day till I was “sweet enough” and my parents would have been sinning against God and against me.
I’m very careful not to speak badly of my parents on here, and I’m being careful of what I say now. I think my parents spanked me when I was innocent without knowing they were doing so. Possibly they sometimes spanked me for one fault when I thought I was being spanked for something else, and I actually deserved what I was being spanked for if not what I thought I was being spanked for, but it was simply never explained. My point is that when human methods advocate spanking, and spanking some more if a child doesn’t respond as you think he should, you’re in grave danger, because you don’t know the child’s heart. If the first spanking was undeserved (say, for example, the child didn’t obey because he has an ear infection and he simply didn’t hear you, or she didn’t eat her supper because she’s sick, or her brother is actually the one who did what she is being spanked for), then repeated spankings will not “train” a child. The Bible warns not to provoke a child to anger, and I do think that repeated spankings will do so in some cases.
It’s the rare parent who has the wisdom to know his child this well, the patience to do it without anger, etc. And since much of their philosophy is based on this concept of repeated spankings (according to numerous articles I read on their site), there is a fine line between their teachings and child abuse, and they can warn against child abuse all they want, but it won’t stop parents from using their principles in an abusive way. Whether they themselves abused, I cannot say. Whether any of their principles are outright abuse again I cannot say (I haven’t read enough to know). But they are, minimally, potentially very dangerous.
Report comment to moderator
We had a shop teacher (public school) that had a large wooden paddle with “The Reformer” wood-burned into the surface.
Woe unto you if you were the one destined for the ankle-holding ceremony, in front of the class.
If proof of “reformation” did not take place, down to the principal’s office you’d go. But take small confort in that.
Then the paddle once again, with held ankles, and the cranium-top close to the wall. Of course, the paddle stung, but you left rubbing the top of your head.
The long range effect?
Don’t fool around when carving wooden bowls.
Report comment to moderator
Here is one essay that does seem to cross the line. It’s on dealing with an angry child. I think his analysis of the situation is fairly good, but he goes too far in his advice, which basically is to terrify the child into submission: http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/articles/child-training/attitudes/article-display/archive/1998/august/01/angry-child/
Report comment to moderator
#87
My parents also did the “stop crying now or I’ll give you something to cry about” line.
I’ve NEVER used that with my kids. I don’t like it. People need to express their feelings, even if it is simple sadness or repentance or whatever.
I rarely spanked my kids. Less so with the younger children than with the oldest. And, while I’m not against spanking as one tool to be used when absolutely necessary, I wish I’d used it even less than I did.
Interestingly enough, while I loved my parents, and knew they loved me, I was also AFRAID of them. And, I was a very compliant child for the most part too.
I don’t want my kids afraid of me.
Literally, when I was in an accident on my bike (a car hit me…my fault), I was afraid to go home to tell my parents. The lady who hit me drove me home because she was afraid my parents might hurt me.
Now, the silly thing about that is that my parents were more than supportive. But, since I was in error, I was sure that they would be angry and I was AFRAID of them.
My mother was appalled when the lady who hit me gently implied that it was possible that my parents would punish me or hurt me over the accident. My mother couldn’t believe I felt that way.
But, I spent much of my young years afraid of my parents, even though they were NOT abusers. But, I had a sensitive personality, and they could be very quick to punishment and very hard, even while spoiling us kids in so many other ways.
Kids shouldn’t be afraid of their parents.
Report comment to moderator
Rossignal,
Typing in all caps is considered shouting on the Internet, and it is very difficult to read. As I go back through this thread, I’m finding that I’m avoiding your comments just because they feel as if you are yelling, and because they are so difficult to read.
Just so you know. “Netiquette” says never to talk in all caps.
Report comment to moderator
And for those of you supporting the Pearls, read the last blog linked in the article, the one by Laurie, who knows the family in which this child was killed. I have never met this child, but I’m weeping in anguish and anger at the Pearls.
I know a person who may have read some of the Pearls’ literature (I’m fairly sure she has mentioned her), and for a long time I’ve been a bit concerned about some of her beliefs. Reading this material tells me I need to call her and make sure, and strongly urge her to desist if she is indeed reading any of this material. Please, please read Laurie’s blog if you’re supporting these authors.
Report comment to moderator
Rossignol,
I never said that there are not consequences for our actions. But consequences don’t absolve us of our guilt. We may be able to make restitution for offenses we have against others, but we can never pay the price for our sins to God and I find the theology of the Pearls very murky in that area.
+ + +
My point in not to argue with you, or others. I believe that most people that read TTUAC want the very best for their children and are loving, devoted Christians. (I believe the author of this post would agree.) The question is, are these materials the best thing to be promoting in our churches and our subculture?
The answer is clearly NO, regardless of one’s stance on spanking. Many evangelical Christians have not been raised in homes with good models of Christian discipline and when a book promises all the answers, they can cling to it to tightly and with the Pearls, that has had dangerous consequences for families. Even if many using “common sense” have fine outcomes, it’s not something that ought to be sold on book tables, given to young parents, etc.
Several comments and many blog posts you can find document the theological differences between the Pearls and mainstream evangelical thought, and those theological differences have practical implications in the advice they dole out. Churches, homeschool groups and others need to be aware of that. That’s my purpose in posting here.
Report comment to moderator
#75
I have an almost 18 year old, a 13 year old and a 10 year old, and I have NEVER, NEVER had to use a rod on them, and have rarely spanked them. And, they are very well-behaved children…enough so that other people comment on it.
And, both my teens are boys and bigger than I am. But, they respect me as their mother who loves them (and too often yells at them), but who never, ever has to physically force them to obedience.
Report comment to moderator
I host a website, http://www.nopaddle.com, about school paddling, still legal in 20 US states and in “Christian” schools in many more states, as physical abuse, sexual abuse, and sexual harassment.
When I first began studying this issue 20 years ago it was due to a false teaching in a Christian school that teachers hitting students’ buttocks with boards was “Christian.” They cited some Old Testament proverbs of the wicked King solomon, whose life of anti-Jehovah and bringing down the destruction of Israel is outlined in I Kings 11. For some reason, even if Solomon were an Old Testament prophet, these same “Old Testawhackalists” don’t advocated stoning people to death for violating the Sabbath, or sacrificing animals.
So many preachers teach “Christian spanking” that I was shocked to take a Strong’s concordance and a Bible and find there are zero New Testament figure hitting children, or teaching anyone else to do so, even parents. Hitting children is not a Christian teaching whatsoever. Those who claim otherwise are false teachers, at best.
Report comment to moderator
TRS – Thanks for the lesson in Nettiquette. I had no idea, just wanted my type to look different, but I guess it just made it hard to read. Sorry!
-R
Report comment to moderator
Common sense, logic and reason, should tell you Rossignol that you don’t beat a child. My comment wasn’t about what YOU do as a parent, but rather what these Pearls are advocating, and apparently, they are not against using the plumbing supply stuff. (I do wonder why you kids are playing with that stuff though inasmuch as they can strike an eye out.)
We have different standards of review in the law, and all I was doing was invoking a lesser standard which should be sufficient. I don’t need to invoke the highest standard, a Biblical standard, to conclude that beating a child is not a good thing to do. So this smack in the face to me is unfounded: “You may think that you know more than God does on this subject, but here is what He says anyway, in case you care to listen;”
I never said I know more than God. I merely said that it should be self-evident that beating a child is not a good thing without the necessity of invoking the Bible at all. Disciplining a child is one thing; beating a child — as the Pearls seem to advocate, which is what I was responding to — is another. There is never, and I mean never, an acceptable reason for beating a child. You may feel brute force is necessary to deal with a child, but I will tell you what I have observed over my life — beaten children turn into vicious adults who beat their own children. You seem to think that using the “rod” means it’s okay to beat your child, that you have God’s permission to brutalize your child, but I don’t read those verses to mean God condones beating children. I think people who beat children deserve the millstone.
Report comment to moderator
TRS: “Kids shouldn’t be afraid of their parents.”
This is my point exactly!
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl, my father’s mother died leaving 5 boys ages 3 to 14. My grandfather did not want to marry again though the people in their little village kept telling him that would be best for the boys. So, he became a strong disciplinarian. Another playmate stole some money from a tin in the kitchen, and my grandfather beat my father believing he’d done it. Only when his oldest brother came home to defend him and rat out the other kid did the father stop. You bet parents can make a mistake. I heard that story 60 years later. It stayed with my father his whole life.
Nothing can convince me that beating a child is something that any society, Christian or not, should tolerate.
Report comment to moderator
Some David Cloud commentary..
http://www.wayoflife.org/files/ddca45e5240075221b3b35eaf091d868-72.html
Report comment to moderator
CherylD. – I did read Laurie’s blog, and my heart goes out to all of them. This is simply horrific. And I agree that, considering her description of the family, it doesn’t seem possible that such a thing could possibly occur. I can understand her looking for something to blame this incident on, but her statements about the Pearls and their teaching tell me that she knows next to nothing about them. She is definitely no expert on anything about the Pearls. Consider this comment from her blog.
“They claim to be a Christian organization, and yet offer no grace and NO mercy. They actually teach parents to show no mercy to their children, and to love them only when they are lovable. (”When they do something lovely, then you can love them.”) The whipping is to begin in infancy. It is to be used in “training” – what you might call behavior modification, and in “chastisement” which is actual punishment.”
NONE of this is actually true, the Pearls teach both grace and mercy and actually advocate teaching these things by simply forgiving the child occasionally, when he/she is already in a repentant state of mind, and when the parent deems that it is appropriate. They also do not teach you to stop loving your child when they are unlovable. This quote, “When they do something lovely, then you can love them.” is simply trying to get the point across that loving affectionate moments are a great way to encourage good behavior from your children. For instance, I ask my little girl to put away her things, and she puts them away cheerfully. Then I might tell her how nice her behavior is, give her a big smile and a hug, and choose that moment to give her a nice treat I have been saving. However if she does not put away her toys, she might get a few swats, and then we might just practice putting the toys away cheerfully & quickly a few times & then a little hug. (no anger or impatience). As far as not hugging the child after being spanked, there is no reason for it, because it is simply no big deal (unless you scream and yell a lot, and get red in the face, and beat the tar out of them, but the Pearls don’t believe in that kind of “discipline’). If you want to give a little hug, I don’t think it would hurt anything, just don’t make a big fuss over it. We all need to be corrected sometimes, and it shouldn’t be a big deal.
The Pearls do NOT advocate “whipping” infants! The internet is full of “quotes” from the Pearls that are used completely out of context, completely misunderstood, and with the most twisted logic you can find.
Their methods are not harsh, but gentle and kind, though strict. For rebellious teenagers they advocate firm boundaries, enforced by logical consequences, along with a loving environment, and non-pushy verbal persuasion, allowing the teenager to decide for his/herself, respecting their right as a person to grow & think for themselves.
A couple of years ago, they had an article in their newsletter, which expressed concern about the a general lack of awareness of current events. They invited their 2,000+ devoted followers to subscribe to WORLD Magazine so they could stay informed. Does that sound cultish to you? I never thought I would see this kind of unfounded gossip published in WORLD Magazine!
My purpose here is not to win an argument. I have been reading the Pearls so long, that they are like friends to me. It is offensive the way people say such hateful, horrid, untrue things about them based on published lies & distortions, and internet gossip. I cannot believe some of the things I have read! I have known them as kind, loving, wise people who have generously helped me immeasureably, and countless others too. To see such lovely people abused this way by people who don’t know them is just unbearable.
Report comment to moderator
Here is Mike Pearl’s response to this tragedy.
“We do not teach ‘corporal punishment’ nor ‘hitting’ children,” Michael Pearl, CEO of No Greater Joy Minstries, wrote in an emailed statement to The Post. “We teach parents how to train their children, which sometimes requires the limited and controlled application of a spanking instrument to hold the child’s attention on admonition.”
Report comment to moderator
I went to the link posted by Mytoosense, and reading down I found that the Pearls believe Jesus was a sinner. That’s not what I believe.
There are other problems with theology these people have, too. Give it a read.
“application of a spanking instrument” — an instrument? really?
Report comment to moderator
Rossingol, it seems to me disingenous to say one doesn’t believe in corporal punishment or hitting children when one’s advice includes so very much about some form of spanking. (Frankly, I don’t like the term “hitting children” for spanking, but one can’t deny that in fact it is.)
I don’t see how it is gossip to say:
(1) This couple’s teaching has been linked to the death of at least two children whose parents followed their advice (even if they arguably followed it “incorrectly,” they can hardly be accused of not following it at all).
(2) This couple’s belief system is unorthodox, even heretical, and their beliefs come out in their teaching.
(3) This couple’s training methods are potentially dangerous, for parents who are a little less patient than they should be, or with vulnerable or strong-willed children.
(4) This couple’s methods may be inappropriate even if followed exactly.
Some of these statements are clearly factual, some opinion. None qualify as “gossip.” I’m glad that these authors helped you. But clearly their advice needs to be used with great caution, if at all.
Report comment to moderator
It actually seems rather unbiblical even on the face of it. Children are not dogs or other animals, and to use B.F. Skinner’s Behaviorism and conditioned response techniques, which deny any sort of higher thinking, just seem to be very unChristian IMO.
Report comment to moderator
“..It is offensive the way people say such hateful, horrid, untrue things about them based on published lies & distortions, and internet gossip..”
rossignol
This holds true concerning many topics on the web, and upsets many an applecart.
Thus, hot-button words like “cult” and “abuse” soon become nonsense terms. Any time there’s a trip-wire with someone’s emotions or will, they play the card.
This is very handy in court-room dramas, wherein nice settlements can be extracted.
Thus, it’s best to stick close to the Scriptures using Biblical terms.
And watch out for Biblical derivative scaffolding, wherein the “teacher” builds rules and regulations on top of the scaffolds of HIS or HER verbosity, insisting on it being next-of-kin to Biblical canon. Pretty soon, one is nodding the head “yes” to all kinds of goofy practices.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D.
When most people talk about “corporal punishment” they are referring to a major event, a walk out to the woodshed with all the anger, yelling, and excessive ‘hitting’ with black & blue bruises, verbal abuse, and all involved. The Pearls don’t want anyone to think they would support that, so they won’t use that phrase. The word “hitting” can be used just as easily to refer to assault & battery, slapping a child across the face, or just slugging somebody cause you’re in a bad mood. When you’re talking about something like this, it is a good idea to be precise, because there a lots of people who will take it the wrong way.
1. I wonder how many deaths can be attributed to following the “teachings” of the Bible?
2. Some of their doctrines I disagree with, but I still believe that their child training method is supported by both the Bible and tradition. I have a book published pre-civil war, published by a Presbyterian minister that describes the same child-training process.
3. Anything is potentially dangerous, for parents who are impatient, or with vulnerable or strong-willed children. Even the Bible is dangerous. If anything, their philosophy is totally inundated with warnings against taking the rod too far, against being impatient, or selfish, or stupid, or .. . I think their record speaks for itself. With thousands who have used their advice, there have been only 2 children, with only hazy connections at best to have suffered such a terrible fate. That is about 10,000? to 2. Not bad considering the horrible stories you hear about.
4. The Pearls expect parents to use wisdom to understand Biblical concepts of obedience and sin, authority & government in a family context, not mindless robots who follow the procedure to the letter. Of course their methods may be inappropriate even if followed exactly. The same is true of every child training manual on the market! AND the Pearls say as much many times in their writings.
All advice needs to be used with great caution no matter who it comes from. There are lots of peope who think they know about the Pearls based on what someone said or wrote about them. Then they go to their website with colored glasses and see things that are not there. Wisdom requires time and study and thought. But nobody has time to have a serious look at this issue, so we find a scapegoat and make them the villain.
It just ain’t so, Joe!
Report comment to moderator
Rossignol,
World Magazine commentators are able to write about what interests them and the readership, I don’t think this post or its comments could be considered being “published” in World Magazine. I did not use the word cult in describing the Pearls, and haven’t noticed anyone else use it either. Pointing out theological differences is not name calling. I own up to my own theological positions (I’m a reformed Presbyterian) and expect others to do the same.
Beyond that, when you are a public figure telling people how to do things, you invite public criticism. If they didn’t have half-a-million copies of this book in print, and didn’t make their livelihood off of evangelical Christians wanting family advice, it wouldn’t be an issue. Because they do, they have to be held accountable for what they say.
The Pearls may say they don’t advocate spanking an infant, but then they say that infants cannot be spanked, because they cannot be punished, because they can not discern between good and evil. However, a seven-month-old may need “stinging licks” from a switch*. 99% of Americans would refer to that as spanking.
The statement the pearls released therefore makes little sense to most readers.
(* Michael Pearl answering a question about a 7mo resisting sleep: 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.”)
Report comment to moderator
TRS -
Conditioning is not unbiblical. It works on dogs. It works on people. My friend HATES coffee! Her mother made her get up every morning early to make her coffee, and it was a bad experience for her. She can’t even stand the smell of coffee. Ask James Dobson, he’ll tell you . . . However, humans can sometimes overcome their own negative conditioning because of our ability to reason through it. That’s the difference between a person and an animal.
Report comment to moderator
Kristen S
When you write even just a commentary for a national news magazine, there is a great responsibility that comes with that. Great harm can be done to individuals and bona fide ministries when writers do not carefully search out the truth, and rely a great deal on hearsay.
I am reformed Presbyterian. The Pearls are Anabaptists, wacky theology from my point of view, but still brothers and sisters in Christ. They do not make their living selling books on child training, they are farmers, or at least they were until their ministry took over their lives. They could be happily retired by now, but instead they keep giving, and giving, and giving . . .
A couple of little licks with a stinging switch for a 9 month old is a spanking? Hmmmmmm maybe, just barely. If you call that a spanking and tell people that the Pearls believe in spanking babies, that is very misleading. People will be imagining a poor helpless babe getting the crap beat out of him with a belt or club. This is just about making your child understand that they really must go to bed. that’s all. Would you like me to tell you a few horror stories about parents who couldn’t get their child to stay in bed? I used to babysit one, he was about 7 or 8 years old. I finally had to tie him in his bed. his parents didn’t mind, they were just glad to find someone who would babysit for them. Actully I never babysat for them again. That child was a terror.
Report comment to moderator
Child-rearing is one of those things that people feel very strongly about, because it touches on some of the most important things in our lives. How our children behave often reflects on US as parents.
However, as a former certified teacher, a scout leader for many years, and former Sunday School teacher, I have been around a *lot* of kids and families in my lifetime. I’ve known kids who’ve ranged from mild, meek and angelic, all the way to kids that I would have sworn went home after school and regrew their pointy tails and horns and picked up their pitchfork at the door!
Still, as a teacher, I was never permitted to physically touch the children for punishment, and I was able to control classes of 30 plus children…even kids who were bigger than I was.
And, as a parent, I’ve been able to rear reasonably well-adjusted, loving young people with very little use of spankings, and no switches whatsoever, as have most of my home-schooling and non-homeschooling friends.
So, if there are two options, one of grace and love and one of switches and breaking the rules, and they both — when applied consistently and carefully — bring about good results, WHY would I choose the one that teaches fear and hurt over the one that does not? What would be the point?
Report comment to moderator
I disagree with #110 and #107. In fact, the redefinition of spanking is something I usually get angry with too permissive of parents for doing!
A spanking is just that. Hitting a 9 month old a few times with a switch is a spanking. Please don’t redefine it and tell me that a spanking is only when a parent is beating a child black and blue, because that plays right into the anti-spanking camp which wishes to make spankings illegal.
Beating a child black and blue in the woodshed or having the “crap” beat out of a child with a club or some such is a BEATING. Hitting a child a few times with a switch is a type of spanking. And, no, I don’t approve of it for a baby. Period.
Report comment to moderator
“A couple of licks from a stinging switch for a 9 month old” is child abuse, period. A 9 month old’s skin is undeveloped and far more sensitive than an older baby’s or adult’s.
No more hitting children in the name of Christ. Enough.
Report comment to moderator
And, “corporal punishment” as I’ve always understood it is defined broadly as any physical punishment, from a tap on the hand with a ruler to a paddling in the principal’s office. I don’t know anyone who think “corporal punishment” refers to some extreme form of physical punishment.
9 month old babies are still wearing sweet little sleepers and playing with rattles and nursing. Why would it ever be ok to hit these tiny ones with sticks?
Report comment to moderator
Thanks, TRS (post 112). I don’t think of “spanking” or “corporal punishment” as meaning abuse. I think of them as meaning a few careful swats. (I don’t think a single slap is a spanking either, for what it’s worth. When a child disobeys a parent, and the parent manages to land a swat on the rear end as the child dashes by, that isn’t a spanking, it’s a swat, and it isn’t an effective way to discipline.) And you’re right that Christians shouldn’t be saying that a spanking “means” abuse.
Rossingol, if Michael Pearl had been asked, “Do you believe in corporal punishment or hitting children?” he could readily have explained that no, he does not, not in the way those terms are often defined. But when he himself voluntarily writes that he doesn’t teach corporal punishment or hitting, he is not being completely honest. The fact remains that many of the articles on his own website suggest more spankings (corporal punishment) in a single weekend than many parents give in an entire lifetime. To say he doesn’t believe in corporal punishment is quite simply not to tell the truth. (In spite of his own claimed sinlessness.) Ideas have consequences, and this man’s idea that he can perfectly train his child to the child’s own perfection, unfortunately readily leads to abuse when actually imperfect parents try to force imperfect children into perfect obedience.
Report comment to moderator
And, “corporal punishment” as I’ve always understood it is defined broadly as any physical punishment, from a tap on the hand with a ruler to a paddling in the principal’s office. I don’t know anyone who think “corporal punishment” refers to some extreme form of physical punishment.
*******I agree. Let’s not define this either.
Report comment to moderator
Whoops! Let’s not REdefine this word either.
Report comment to moderator
#115
I could probably count on my fingers and toes the number of times that I physically disciplined my children with a swat, slap on the hand, or spanking. And, just my fingers for my younger two.
I believe it is occasionally necessary. But, to give as many physical hits, switches or whatever you want to call it that the Pearls advocate does not sit well with me.
I would rather go “no spank” than “spank for every infraction.”
Report comment to moderator
Whoops! I am out of it.
“So, if there are two options, one of grace and love and one of switches and breaking the child’s will, and they both — when applied consistently and carefully — bring about good results, WHY would I choose the one that teaches fear and hurt over the one that does not? What would be the point?
Report comment to moderator
I worked in a church nursery that ministered to ghetto people. One 6 month-old baby who was left in the nursery would crawl over to any baby he could find, pin him to the ground, and start biting. He bit my son so hard on the ear that he bled alot! We would pick him up, tell him not to bite, and put him back down, but he would just crawl over to another victim and bite that one. He ended up in solitary confinement in a playpen by himself. His mother was a drug addict and alcoholic who lived on welfare. He never had a minute of kindness in his whole life (except maybe in the church nursery). Once I saw his mother slap him hard across the face. We really tried hard to help that woman. . . .
Anyway, the point is that babies who are 9 months old can be tyrants! Even babies who have known nothing but love and affection can become demanding, spoiled, and will scream and throw a fit when they don’t get what they want. (been there, done that) A couple of little licks with a small switch doesn’t even cause enough pain to be worth fussing about. And the Pearls also mention that is is only used on a wilfull child when all else has failed. When my son got to be about two years old, he was beautifully trained, and was a real joy. Meanwhile all my friends were complaining about the “terrible twos”. The proof is in the pudding.
Report comment to moderator
The proof is in the pudding.
******Exactly. And, since we have *multiple* examples of children who are well behaved without using such techniques, have you considered that you might have a well-behaved son IN SPITE of such things?
Again, I ask, if you can get the same results without using so much switching and punishing, then why do it??
Report comment to moderator
I am glad you all don’t think that corporal punishment means abusive actions. I agree. Many people do believe that though. I have met a few “tough discliplinarians”. I have friends who had fathers who were “tough disciplinarians”, and that’s what they think of when they hear the phrase “corporal punishment”. Mike Pearl was asked to give a response, and he kept it short. The media is only interested in sound bites, not long exhortations about what corporal punishment is or isn’t.
Report comment to moderator
I have not always used the Pearls methods, once I was a struggling mom, trying to figure out how to get my kids to cooperate while I cared for them. They were not mean or bad, they were just out of control. I had found ways to contain them, the crib, the high chair, but when they were out, everything had to be put out of reach. When I began trying out the Pearls philosophy my life changed dramatically. Now instead of wondering how I would survive for another day, I was actually enjoying my children. And because I tried for 100% consistency, I rarely had to spank them after the first week. They were generally cooperative, happy, and well-mannered. You really cannot achieve this with small children without using the rod. Just won’t happen.
Sometimes a child turns out well because of other disciplinary techniques, and lots of love and attention, but there has to be some form of discipline, or it won’t work. Just ask nanny 911.
Report comment to moderator
As the mother of a VERY strong willed child I can understand how a parent would get desperate enough to try this. I was lucky to find Dr. Leman’s book instead.
Report comment to moderator
You really cannot achieve this with small children without using the rod.
******But, I DID.
Report comment to moderator
You all (I’m from the South, I just talk this way, and I’m not racist) need to let go of the idea the the Pearls believe in spanking your kids all the time. If you do the training, you can eliminate 90% of whatever form of discipline you are using. The whole point of the book is to eliminate the need for constant spanking/time out/scolding/nagging/screaming/fill-in-the-blank/whatever. I’ve tried to explain that the Pearls do not advocate violence, never have, never will. It’s been nice chatting with you. Gotta go to a birthday party. See ya!
Happy birthday to you . . . . Happy birthday to you ……
Report comment to moderator
TRS -
Your 2 year old always came when you called him, didn’t touch things when you said no, didn’t throw his food on the ground, and NEVER threw a temper tantrum? REALLY, do tell . . . . .
Report comment to moderator
And, again, we’re not talking NO discipline vs. the the other extreme (the Pearls). We’re talking a consistent discipline seasoned with grace and minus the vast majority of corporeal punishment (which is what it is whenever you are doing physical punishment involving some sort of pain).
In other words, if there was a family following today’s no discipline or PC version of discipline, I could see why the Pearl’s would seem to be saviors.
But, that family would be sailing over all the options in-between.
Report comment to moderator
KBELLS – I have Dr. Leman’s book, love it! Had some great advice. Also he believes in spanking in certain instances where it’s safe to say that you believe in spanking (when a child is about to kill himself and won’t stop)I find the Dr. Leman’s book shares some of the same principles as the Pearls book. Anyway, I’m really leaving now, bye!!!
Report comment to moderator
TRS – Sounds like you were doing the same thing I was doing. I wasn’t beating my kids all day. Any corrections were very minor. Mostly I spent time reading to them and teaching them good behavior. Didn’t wait around for them to get into trouble. Anyway, good talking to you. Bye!
Report comment to moderator
Rossignol: I know you explained that you were from the south and you just talk that way – you’re not racist. You must know that regardless of where you are from or what your intent is, calling anyone “Ghetto People” is not appropriate in the slightest. I was offended.
I have read Megan’s article thoughfully and read every single comment posted.
For me, there is no debate. There is a distint difference between loving discipline and abuse. I believe the Pearl’s book (which I am familiar with) clearly, in my opinion, crosses a line. Mr. Pearl’s response when asked about the recent case further supports my concern.
“We do not teach ‘corporal punishment’ nor ‘hitting’ children,” Michael Pearl, CEO of No Greater Joy Minstries, wrote in an emailed statement to The Post. “We teach parents how to train their children, which sometimes requires the limited and controlled application of a spanking instrument to hold the child’s attention on admonition.”
For me, it’s just a game of symantics. His statement was not based in truth. You can argue definitions all day long. The bottom line remains the same for me. The Pearl’s teachings cross a line into abuse.
This is just my opinion….I don’t feel the need to defend it and won’t engage in “friendly debate” on this website. My spirit when reading this book (for a friend) was not at peace with the Pearl’s teachings. Anyone who subscribes to their teachings have children I will be praying for.
Many people have encouraged readers to go to the Pearl’s website and read the wonderful testimonials. I hope it doesn’t have to be pointed out that the Pearl’s website is only going to have the most positive, glowing testimonials. Nothing negative about the Pearls can be found on their website…that defies logic.
As for Megan, I found this article to be thoughtful and responsible and I appreciate her courage in writing about a subject so controversial. I look forward to future columns by Mrs. Dunham.
I will post this highly frustrated because I lack an ability to properly articulate what my heart feels. I don’t want to argue…I just want to daily seek to be more like Him and follow His Word.
Report comment to moderator
Rossingol, one does have to wonder why is it so very, very important that child training be so firm that a two-year-old never sins, or at least never does so outwardly? I want to see children under authority, but would rather see a child who sins than a child beaten into submission (which is the parent’s sin, and which is quite likely to lead to the child’s own rebellion later in life).
Sanctification is a lifelong process. The idea that an unregenerate two-year-old will never disobey under a certain parenting principle is, um, unusual. Why is this a requirement of good parenting? Where is it said in Scripture that this is possible? Do you yourself follow the Pearls’ theology (where sinlessness is possible)? The more I explore this material, the uglier it is.
Report comment to moderator
“When are Christians going to stop blindly following garbage teaching and THINK?”
They reconsider garbage teachings only after their own children start dying. Wouldn’t it be nice if they could expand their narrow range of sympathies?
And why, in this particular case, are Christians so backwards? Isn’t it all too typical? It’s likely symptomatic of a deeper issue.
Report comment to moderator
CT, you show only how little you know about Christians in every line of your post. And pretty much every post on this thread (on any side) has shown more thought than yours has.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D.
I know we’ve had our disagreements in the past, but please don’t be bitter. Here I’m suggesting that the issue at hand may be symptomatic of a larger problem. That is, it’s a call for wider reflection, wider thought. So maybe you’re reacting a bit too quickly in trying to shut it down.
Report comment to moderator
CT,
Those that are NOT new creations in Christ, can ONLY go backwards, regardless of planning and effort.
Thus, time for you to join the Heaven-bound..
“Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: For our God [is] a consuming fire.” (Heb 12:28-29)
Report comment to moderator
Hey Mytoosense,
I’m ready to join your progressive heaven-bound Christian club just as soon as you can help me understand why other Christians are often so backwards, as in the issue at hand. What’s going on with them?
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D.
I do not follow their sinlessness philosophy, if they really do teach that. I have heard so much about them that is false, that I don’t really know if I should believe that.
It’s not about keeping a 2 year old child from ever sinning outwardly. It’s about being a continual presence in your child’s life, laughing, talking, teaching, training and correcting as the need arises. The more constant and consistent this is the better it takes. That’s why they strive for 100% consistency. Eventually this is internalized and the child forms his own values, which will shape his decisions for the rest of his life. When wilfullness or selfishness become apparent in the child, the parent will train and correct towards a more virtuous character within. The attitude is the important thing, not whether they exhibit perfect obedience. They begin this process before the child has a chance to become wilfull or devious. Small corrections begun at an early age, rather than big confrontations after wilfullness is well established is at the core of their teaching. I know they don’t expect perfection from their kids. Maybe they expect it from some older more mature Christians, but to what degree I don’t know.
I don’t know that this is spelled out in Scripture, but experience has shown me that it works. It’s not that the child will never disobey, it’s that the values that he is forming inside make him want to obey. This means that the child will obey with great consistency, and even when no one is watching.
I have not seen any ugliness come from their teaching, in fact it works beautifully.
Report comment to moderator
***”If parents choose to abuse their children and kill them, it is because they did not love their children.”***
What if they abuse them without killing them. Still no love there?
In any case . . . Nine years ago, a Canadian school principal was busted for possessing child pornography. Specifically, he collected pictures of children being spanked. Turns out he’d also spanked a number of students during his career.
In 2002, the FBI broke up a nationwide child-spanking pornography ring. A few of its members even made films using their own kids, who could be heard tearfully pleading their innocence.
Now, it’s not really news that spanking can take on sexual overtones, as anyone who’s seen “Monty Python and the Holy Grail” can tell you. If you doubt it, just type “spanking” into a search engine and see what kind of results you get. And since there are people out there who are sexually drawn to children, it figures that some would enjoy spanking them.
Tragically for many victims, though, society has mostly failed to recognize the potential for sexual abuse in the practice of spanking children or even young adults. Perpetrators often deflect suspicion simply by playing the discipline card.
It’s high time we woke up to this problem. You can learn more at the page titled “Spanking Can Be Sexual Abuse” (easily found with search engine).
Report comment to moderator
139. so can bathing a child, sleeping in the bed with a child, hugging a child, taking pictures of children. Do we need to outlaw all that because some perv abused them. However, I do agree that teachers should not be allowed to paddle
Report comment to moderator
CT, you post have been nothing but your opinion, no stats, no logic, no thought. Come up with something we can actually think about.
Report comment to moderator
“Ghetto people” yeah, that’s offensive.
I was the one who used the word cult in connection with the Pearls. I was once in an abusive Christian cult and the Pearls have all the earmarks read anyone discription (Walter Martin’s, Rick Ross’, Ron Enroth’s).
In our church, and in other churches I’ve been involved with–I travel a lot teaching women’s retreats and coferences–the Pearl teachings have been a problem. The two biggest problems that come from it are sinless perfection and abuse as “discipline.” It’s pretty consisitent across the states. If the Pearls don’t really teach that they have done an extremely lousy job of teaching.
Report comment to moderator
#138
You talk a lot about all the positives, and fail to mention that a HUGE part of the philosophy is carrying around a tube and hitting your child with it for every infraction. I’ve been reading the Pearls. Let’s be honest about what is written.
My children weren’t perfect, but neither am I. And, yes, I was proud of my 2 year olds…without EVER using a tube to whip them.
Bottom line: you will never convince me that this isn’t a serious problem that shouldn’t be shouted from the mountain tops and that Christians shouldn’t refute with all their might.
I think you will be very fortunate if your children grow up and don’t hate you.
Report comment to moderator
Rossingol, I strongly believe that children should be led to obedience early. It angers me when I see a two-year-old running through a parking lot and the parent helplessly saying, “Stop! Come back!” Children need obedience for their own safety and moral character.
I just am not sure that the idea of perfect obedience can be met, or that obedience should be enforced in this way. For example, one of their stories tells about a nine-month-old who won’t lie down when it’s time to go to sleep. Well, if the child is quiet in its crib, does it matter? Listen, I’m 42 years old, and I still can’t “go to sleep” on command. I wish I could. Even as a child, I used to lie and look around the room for a good long while before I went to sleep. My parents could, I suppose, have spanked me because my eyes were open, but since I couldn’t go to sleep even when I closed them for several minutes, it made more sense for my active mind to look around until I got sleepy enough that they closed on their own. Now I try to go to bed later since it fits my body rhythm better, and I can sleep a little better. But an infant not sleeping is simply not an “offense” worthy of a few slaps with a twig. A child reared that way is likely to be obedient (or so rebellious his parents escalate into abuse), but I seriously doubt that that child will really feel love for his parents or for God. This isn’t healthy child-rearing, even if it “works.” It isn’t even the way I’d train a dog.
Report comment to moderator
“..help me understand..”
ct
ct,
Sorry for the delay..had to clock out for the night.
Not sure how I can help a supposed PeriodicChartOfTheElements-onlyite, since “understanding” within such entities is outside the realm of “their” capacity. Remember, they’re only chemistry.
Then there’s that other problem..
“Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:” (Eph 4:18)
Having said that, my, have I got good news for you!..
“Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,” (Lu 24:45)
See? You simply need the lights turned on.
Yippee!
Report comment to moderator
“..to a paddling in the principal’s office…”
releizabeth
r,
To continue my previous principal-office-visit recollection..
Sometimes two students would get the paddle at the principal’s. One, with seasoned experience, would warn the other while going through the ankle holding process (and whispering at an awkward 45 degree angle to the ground), to scoot back from the wall a bit, thus saving one from the cranial bonk.
Tightening the gluteals, the paddle really didn’t hurt that much.
The principal thought he was the triumphant victor, rewarding himself with the 2nd cup of coffee, while the students milked it with the “oooowwww…that RRREEEAAALLLLYYY hurt”.
Roaring in laughter down the hall, theatric, shop-class soberness was soon resumed.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, and I’m very glad you don’t follow their philosophy of sinless perfection. I did confirm with one of their followers yesterday that they teach that, BTW, besides such quotes from them being all over websites debunking them. But if someone doesn’t believe that theology, then being VERY cautious with child-rearing practices that have a greatly flawed view of human beings would be wise. I wouldn’t train my child with a book written by homosexual parents, for example, or Mormons living in a polygamous household.
Ideas have consequences, and in this case, a wrong idea about human beings has actually been implicated in the death of children. One can easily say, “Well, obviously these parents didn’t follow it correctly.” And it does go without saying that the Pearls wouldn’t tell parents to beat their child to death. But it’s equally true that their methods didn’t work for these families, to the point of death, and that most likely they’d never work for such children (adopted older children who may have some attachment issues).
Look, I’ve seen with my own eyes a child spanked inappropriately by people using this method. They don’t believe children can be perfect, either, but they spank for infractions most parents would not. The case I saw was a two-year-old spanked for not eating supper. It turns out the child was ill, and threw up all over its bed during the night. But a two-year-old doesn’t have the language skills to say, “Mommy, I’m just not hungry because my tummy feels icky. Is it OK if I don’t eat this?” Assuming “disobedience” in such a case, and spanking for such disobedience, is trying harder for obedience than for winning a child’s heart. Both are necessary, but relationship can’t be sacrificed for obedience, or love is missing.
Report comment to moderator
Oh my goodness!!! I am so sad to read this article. I just can’t say enough good about the Pearl’s and their ministry. I now have 4 daughters that I have trained the “Pearl way” which is really not some “method” they developed for those of you who have never read their material. I would describe it more as old-fashioned wisdom. Their point is that parents often do more damage emotionally to children by the constant anger and irritation they display towards their children. They advocate that parents be more firm and consistent in the very beginning of a child’s life so that they don’t have to spend years and years getting angry and irritated at their children and basically ruinging their relationship with them. When I read this article, right away I can tell you that these parents that are abusing their children were absolutely not following what the Pearl’s teach. In fact, they are doing the opposite. If you read other portions of their book, they emphasize the need for the parents to “tie strings of fellowship” with their children. They talk about never ever spanking in anger. In fact, they say that your spanking should be as casual as a porch swing on Sunday. Their point in using the training of a mule isn’t to say that children are not more valuable or more intelligent than a mule, but to show that we should have the same patience, focus and consistency with training our children as we would expect to need with an animal. It would be ridicuous to try to train an animal by letting it get a way with something you don’t want it to do and only when they have done it a number of times and really made you mad, then to “discipline” it by putting it in time-out, or severly spanking it at that point. NO, you would consistently apply whatever mild physical discomfort was necessary every single time, while showing what you did want annd rewarding that until the animal was trained. There would be no place for anger or emotional appeals to the animal. IN the same way, young children cannot reason and do not understand a delayed “consequence” like “time-out” THey just feel rejected and frustrated. They do understand a little swat on the bottom with a switch. The Pearl’s advocate the use of a switch because it is less likely to cause spinal disallighnment than a parent who is hitting on the bottom through a thick diaper and has to use enough force to get it to even be felt. I have also read much writing by the grown children of the Pearls, and they have said that they don’t even remember ever getting spanked. They don’t remember their parents being angry or irritated at them. Their parents were so consistent in the early years, that they were well trained by the time they were toddlers and they no longer had a need to spank at all. Their home was joyful. They are all involved in ministries of their own and healthy, functioning people. They are all very close with their parents.
The Pearl’s wrote the book to answer all of the people that were constantly asking them how they managed to raise up such wonderful kids. They didn’t start out to write a child training book. People wanted to hear what they did. I have heard the Pearl’s speak a few times and have heard them say that when they wrote the book, they assumed that people spent time with their kids and as they travel the country and get letters, they are surprised to realize that a huge problem is that people are trying to find a “method” to train their kids, without spending any time with them. When they speak, they address this. They have helped me tons, and many people that I know. I am so disappointed to see their name dragged through the mud. They have spent their lives in minisry and helping others. They are currently working tirelessly on getting the gospel translated into many languages. I thnk they are under spiritual attack. What a shame that it should come through their own sister in the Lord.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry for all of the typos and weird capitalizations. My computer keyboard kept sticking and scrolling away from where I was typing.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer – where do you read that they believe Jesus was a sinner? I have read their material for years and find this one really hard to believe!
Report comment to moderator
Well, I know that I have already written a lot, but I just keep thinking about this article, and everyone’s responses. I have been so helped by the Pearl’s, and I don’t want this sort of misrepresentation from keeping others from being helped too. Since I know how easy it is to stereotype and then disregard the opinion of someone who is different, I would like to say that I am a pretty typical Southern Californian suburban mom. I have 4 daughters. I live in a tract home. I shop at the mall. I attend a contemporary “mega” church. I partially home school my kids through a charter school in our town. My kids are involved in a myriad of activities. I graduated from a university with a degree in Social Work. I worked with abused kids. In other words, I don’t live on a farm, grow my own food, make my own soap from goat’s milk, isolate myself from society, go to a homogenous church, grow my hair to my knees, and wear dresses that I have sewn myself down to my ankles. Not that I disdain any of these particular activities or characteristics (in fact I admire quite a few of them), but I just want to be clear that not everyone that “subscribes” to the point of view of the Pearl’s is cut from this same cloth. I also was not raised in a Christian home. In fact, I was raised in an alcoholic and fairly abusive home. I know abuse when I see it. I hate abuse of kids. What the Pearl’s teach IS NOT ABUSE!!! Not even close! Their whole desire is to see children more cherished and valued than they are. They know that children NEED to know that there are boundaries and that they thrive in an environment where those boundaries are consistently enforced. Some of the examples they give may seem strange to you, but the point isn’t that the particular behavior on the part of the child was egregious. The point is that if one trains a child to ALWAYS submit to your authority immediately, there will never be a situation where the child’s behavior becomes egregious. If you train the child to always stop and come to you no matter what when they want to be silly and run away while you are changing their diaper, they will always stop and come to you when you call them when they are running toward a pool or a busy street. If you train them to always accept NO, DON’T TOUCH even when it is something as innocent as pulling your glasses off of your face, then they will immediately obey, NO DON’T TOUCH when they are about to touch a hot stove and you are too far away to grab them. Do you see the point? Yes, it is nice to have a well trained baby who lies still while you change the diaper, or who doesn’t pull glasses off of your face, but it really isn’t the goal. To spank over those things in and of themselves does seem harsh. But, once a person realizes that every time you say “no” and then still allow the behavior because after all it really isn’t that big of a deal, you are training that child to disregard your instructions. At best it leads to a frustrating dynamic with your child. At worst, it can lead to danger.
My first daughter was extremely “strong willed.” I had already bought “Dare to Discipline” and “The Strong Willed Child” by the time she was 15 months old. I also bought “Shepherding a Child’s Heart” and several other parenting books. I have a mini library of parenting books. At the time, I already considered myself to be pretty consistent and tough. I would spank, but only as a last resort. Sure, I could eventually get her to stop doing something, or start doing whatever, but her attitude and heart were always still defiant. I was so frustrated and distraught. I didn’t like being with my child! Here is what the dynamic (before the Pearl’s book) was like. For example, I might tell my daughter (3 years old) to stop standing on the couch and sit on her bottom. She would stare at me – get a little smirk on her face – and put her hands on her hips in defiance. I would say, “Ok. Go to the time out chair. She would obey and do it, but she would scream and cry the whole time. I would tell her that she only had to sit there for three minutes, but the timer would not start until she stopped having a fit. She would sit there and keep having a fit. I would “stick to my guns” and she would stick to hers. A half an hour would go by. She would still be fussing. I would try a few times to explain to her that she needed to stop fussing and sit quietly, or the time-out wouldn’t end. I would even allow myself to be late somewhere just so that I could be consistent. All the while, my blood pressure is rising. I’m trying to remain calm, but I know that I am being controlled by a 3 year old. Finally, I would tell her that if she didn’t stop, she is going to have to be spanked. The episode ends in a spanking and I am just trying to not let my anger come through in that spanking. It’s over, but she still hasn’t come to a place of having a respectful attitude, which was what she was ultimately being disciplined for in the first place. Sure, I could eventually get her to stop standing on the couch, but that really wasn’t the problem. The problem was her defiant attitude, which she still retained. I then wait a little while until the next standoff. This went on all day, every day. I was so exhausted and honestly not enjoying being a mother. Then, I read To Train Up a Child. I reasoned that since all of these episodes were ending in a spank anyway might as well start with a quick spank while I’m not angry and see what happens. It worked like a charm. I actually had people commenting on the change they saw in my daughter within weeks. I ended up disciplining far less than I had been. She actually was getting spanked far less than she had been. That is the beauty of what they teach. They don’t advocate going through days and days and weeks and weeks of beating your kids until they cower in fearful submission. It is just the opposite. They teach that if you consistently apply the rod in a controlled, friendly, but authoritative manner you will hardly ever have to do it. I have seen this play out with all of my other kids. They are now ages, 3, 5, 7 and 10 years old. I almost never have to spank any of them. They are a delight and very well behaved. We are all very close and I really enjoy them. This isn’t because they just happen to be easy going. Only one of them truly is easy going. The other three are very active, passionate, and stubborn but sweet girls. They just learned early to obey. I am so thankful for the Pearl’s advice. I have read their books, newsletter and even attended two different conferences that they spoke at. The way that I implemented their advice is not watered down softened version of what they really teach. The people that are using their material to abuse their kids are the ones not following it correctly. The Pearl’s constantly warn about provoking your children and being too harsh and damaging their hearts. It is a huge concern to them. I wonder how many true abuse cases might be avoided if more people followed their training advice. How many frazzled, frustrated mothers would not strike out either physically or verbally at their kids if they were empowered to gain their kids respect and obedience at a young age?
Report comment to moderator
My apologies to everyone for using the term “ghetto people”. It was not intended to be insulting, and I had the utmost respect for those people. They had very difficult lives, and some of them were wonderful Christians. Please forgive me, my brain was tired, and I really don’t know why I used those words.
Report comment to moderator
There is a post from Mytoosense above which provided a link, I think it is #100 or so.
Having now read the balance of the thread, I can’t believe people really think a two year old has the intelligence to intentionally sin. I just don’t think they are that aware. Sure, they know how to manipulate and they know what they want, but they have no capacity for evil. I’m glad the legal system has concluded that a child under the age of 7 can’t form the requisite intent. Some of you would have these little darlings/stinkers working a rock pile.
Report comment to moderator
mamawit,
The article you asked NJL about..
http://www.wayoflife.org/files/ddca45e5240075221b3b35eaf091d868-72.html
Report comment to moderator
Scroll down, Mamawit.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D.
I appreciate your caution, that is a great strength. It is very difficult to describe to you the spirit of this training method. The atmosphere is not one of continual punishments, children being swatted constantly, mountains made out of molehills, etc….
The spirit is like a very sweet fellowship, sharing smiles, constant encouragement, patience when they are clumsy or make mistakes, and only rarely a mild correction for deliberate disobedience or a bad attitude. What really sets this apart is that it pretty much eliminates all scolding and quarelling. My children LOVE me. All of them have told me that I am their favorite person. My 6-year-old told me last night that she loved me first, my husband next, and the dog after us! Two years ago she was scared to death of dogs, but then we found this little puppy on the side of the road. God provided this puppy just when we needed her.
If you’ll look more closely you’ll see that they do not spank the child for not going to sleep, they spank the child because he/she will not lie still in bed. My son when he was a toddler would not take a nap. He was a horrible grouch all evening because he was very tired, but I could not get him to go to sleep. He would sit and play in his crib. That was when I decided to give the Pearls a try. It only took 2 days before he was going to sleep in the afternoon, and we had a peaceful happy household at dinnertime again.
Although scripture does not spell all the specific details out, I do believe it supports their philosophy. I too would be cautious about material written my Mormons, etc . . .But I have a book written by Shinichi Suzuki that has taught me so much, and he is a New Age Buddhist. It’s like panning for gold, you just have to find the gold and be careful not to let any gravel get mixed in.
As for making mistakes and spanking a child wrongly, it happens to everybody, Pearls or not. The Pearls have written many articles about taking care to really discern the situation. Some parents pay very little attention to these issues, and will just start spanking any time their kids become obnoxious. They advocate paying thoughtful attention and being very aware of what is happening, and who has a stinky attitude. Children are forgiving of these mistakes though when they know that you really care. Of course, I always apologize to the children, and they learn to apologize for their mistakes as well. That’s called grace, how sweet the sound. It save a wretch like me.
Good talking to you, Cheryl, it was a great conversation. ‘preciate it! Gotta go now!
Report comment to moderator
Thanks, Rossingol.
NJ Lawyer, I’d disagree about two-year-olds. I think they can sin very deliberately. And I think it’s acceptable to spank a two-year-old. I do think that the younger the child, the more careful you have to be; the pre-verbal child might honestly not understand what you want, or might not be able to express the reason he can’t obey. (He can’t lie down because of a painful ear infection, for example.) So one had better be very, very careful the child is showing rebellion and not something else. I don’t think spanking should be done for any and every infraction, personally. Yes, for rebellion. But not for everything the parent doesn’t like.
I don’t think even a ten-year-old should be spanked for not eating, personally, though it’s possible he might be spanked for something he says while he is choosing not to eat. And if he has been told to at least try a bite of something or he will be spanked, then the parents need to follow through. But I personally don’t think that food is a good place for such battles, partly because issues with food can lead to anorexia or obesity, and partly because I know that my own parents saw my difficulty eating as rebellion when it was quite simply lack of hunger, and it’s hard to choke food down when you aren’t hungry. So I know the danger implicit in misjudging a child’s motives. (Though I was an adult before I realized the issue was that I wasn’t hungry as a child. I simply didn’t realize my appetite didn’t match that of others around me. And it wasn’t until I realized in adulthood in Chicago that I was never hungry in summer, and put two and two together of having grown up in Phoenix where it is “always summer,” that I realized why I never was hungry as a child, or why mealtimes were unpleasant because I wasn’t hungry and had to eat a full plate of food anyway. To this day I’m a picky eater, because mealtimes were times to dread. Given a choice between a spanking and a meal, I’d have gladly taken the spanking and had it over with. But I couldn’t get off so easily–I had to eat every bite, even if it took me two or three hours.)
In Chicago one day one of my roommates came home heartsick. She was working with a summertime kids’ program, and one of their kids had been uncharacteristically naughty all week, and in trouble with the teachers. And she had just found out that his mother had died the following weekend. (And someone I attended college with said she had gone through her entire life being told, “Take that smirk off your face.” It wasn’t a smirk; it was her normal expression!)
Any system that thinks one can train a child’s attitude and not just his actions had better be super, super sure that one is reading those attitudes correctly. And since this system is based on the heresy of perfectability, I personally don’t think it’s capable of finding that balance, nor do I think it’s a “safe” system for the average parent to use. Compliant children don’t need it, and rebellious children won’t be brought to obedience with it. And only patient, wise parents are wise enough to use it well. For those parents, it may be great–but it’s still dangerous, because it’s flawed at its heart.
The idea that one can receive perfect behavior from a child is untrue, and teachers who hold to that philosophy not only risk pride in themselves, but they risk having disciples who abuse the teaching. (If you think a child CAN be trained to perfect obedience, then the child’s continued sin is proof you aren’t doing the system well enough. And if you yourself can be perfect, then you can know perfectly what your child needs at all times.) Goodness, I even disagree with them that a dog can be trained to perfect obedience, and dogs don’t have a sin nature!
Report comment to moderator
Rossingnol – you stated the following:
“My apologies to everyone for using the term “ghetto people”. It was not intended to be insulting, and I had the utmost respect for those people. They had very difficult lives, and some of them were wonderful Christians. Please forgive me, my brain was tired, and I really don’t know why I used those words.”
I know this is off subject but I feel compelled to say that your apology/explanation was just offensive as your use of the term “ghetto people”. In your apology, you stated that you had the utmost respect for “those people”…….
Still offensive and I’d explain why but based upon your explanation I don’t think you would understand.
Tired or not….Southern or not (I’m Southern)….it’s not acceptable.
Ever.
Report comment to moderator
158. If you want to be offended bad enough you can find a reason.
Report comment to moderator
I agree, kbells, and it takes a lot for me to get offended but there are just some things you don’t say….
Report comment to moderator
154. – That man who wrote that article is logically impaired and he has a critical spirit. He probably eats roast Mike Pearl every Sunday afternoon for dinner. Here is the quote he took from Mike Pearl;
“God was willing to see Jesus as a sinner that He might be permitted to see us as righteousness. Jesus became what we are that we might become what He is. By the imputing act of God, HE BECAME A SINFUL SON OF MAN [for a brief moment in time - parenthesis mine] so we could become sinless sons of God. It was a trade. He traded His righteousness for our sin” (Pearl, “God Made Jesus to be Sin”).
Mike is simply trying to explain the doctrine of imputation, that Jesus took on the sins on the world so that we could become righteous sons of God. Mike Pearl has never said that Jesus sinned, or that he took on a sinful nature. Rather what he said was that he was punished for our sins, and therefore had to take those sins onto himself. In a manner of speaking, you could say that at that moment Jesus was crushed under the enormous weight of sin.
“Jesus became what we are that we might become what He is.” Mike Pearl
“He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” 2 Cor 5:21
The title of that sermon was “God made Jesus to be Sin”.
R –
Report comment to moderator
AKMajors-
“Those people” does not HAVE to mean THOSE PEOPLE as in people in a different class than the rest of us. I could just be referring to a group of people that I knew in a particular time and place who were also my FRIENDS or even referring to a group of people I admire (as in, those people were hard working and honest). Now I hope you will understand why I am offended. It’s easy to take offense where none is intended and where it should not be expected. You probably don’t go an hour without being offended by some innocent well-meaning person.
Report comment to moderator
Still offensive and I’d explain why but based upon your explanation I don’t think you would understand.
AKMAJORS,
there are just some things you don’t say….
R–
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, I forgot the quotation marks up above. That incredibly insulting statment was made by AKMAJORS.
Report comment to moderator
Rossignol…for offending you, I sincerely apologize. I appreciate your explanation – I jumped to the wrong conclusion. I can honestly say getting offended rarely fits into my day…just read more into your statement that what you had intended.
That’s the problem with the written word…always subject to the interpretation of the reader. This reader sincerely apologizes to you.
I NEVER ended to be rude but see that I was just that.
Report comment to moderator
Mamawit,
As several have said, parents can have great results with lots of different tools and strategies. What is disturbing about the Pearls is that there are several documented cases of abuse from parents trying to follow their philosophy. I think it *can* be very dangerous, and absolutely damaging to some families. Adopted children, who do not have a fully formed attachment to their parents and have often developed a tough exterior from traumatic experiences absolutely should not be parented with these techniques.
Many will be able to read their materials and interpret it into the best light. Others will read it and fixate on the hows of training more than the whys of tying heartstrings, etc. and will take it too far. I’ve seen it. Others have too. That’s why we feel led to speak out so that their materials aren’t blindly promoted.
Report comment to moderator
AKMAJORS – Thank you, apology accepted, and I do understand. Those things do happen sometimes. I’m sorry if my writing was not clear. Let’s be friends, OK?
Report comment to moderator
Rossignol…You got it, sister…..:)Thanks for accepting my apology.
Report comment to moderator
AKMajors – No problem, sister
See ya around!
Report comment to moderator
Oh, and this from the Pearls’ website was a real gem–I saw snippets of it on several other sites, but the letter and answer (from both Pearls) is breathtaking. http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/articles/general-view/archive/1999/september/01/abusive-husband/
In short, a woman with an unsaved, abusive husband who has had “multiple affairs” is told she must stay with her husband. God hates divorce, no exception, and she will be guilty throughout eternity if she leaves him. Michael even goes on to tell what to do in worst-case scenarios like sexual abuse of their children, and basically if she thinks he won’t do it again, she should give him another chance; if he goes to jail for it, she should wait for him and take him back with open arms when he comes out.
In all of it, the strong indication is given that if she is a godly woman, he will most definitely change and become a good husband.
I’m sorry, but this is sick, and this is not godly counsel. God never tells a woman that she must stay with an adulterous husband, or a husband who is sexually molesting the couple’s children. This is quite simply evil in God’s name.
Report comment to moderator
Kristens,
I understand your concern, however it should be noted that within the book To Train Up a Child, the case of foster children and children that have been abused is addressed. They clearly instruct not to use spanking and even say that if one is consistent with whatever discipline is used, the same results can be achieved but in a much longer space of time. I have lent out my copy of TTUAC, so I can’t give you an exact quote. I have given this book to many mothers and many of them have implemented it just as instructed with beautiful results. I have not once had someone that I have given the book to, or known who trains according to this book end up abusing their children. Have you read the book? It sounds as if most posters here have not. I agree with everything ROSSIGNOl has said. I think if you gave this book to just about anyone over the age of 70, they would wholeheartedly agree with it. Its just good old fashioned sense. Anyone that wants to find a justification to be abusive can use a number of authors to do that. I have a hard time believing that someone that would otherwise be gentle and loving parents ended up abusing their kids because they read this book and became convinced that it was o.k. The people that you say you know who did this… were they really the sort of people that would have been gentle and kind had they not read this book? By the way, to the poster that said something about not thinking the 2 year old knew he was sinning – the point isn’t to punish them because those little two year olds are such bad sinners. The point is that you are just training them to obey before they know how to reason morally. If you wait until they are old enough to reason morally, they will have so many bad habits and behaviors that you probably would never be able to train them at that point. I think this is why our teenage population is so lost these days. Parents are taught to wait too long before training them. Also, the Pearls teach much more on the need to spend a lot of time with your kids and involve them in every aspect of your life then they do about spanking. It is just one small aspect of what they teach.
Report comment to moderator
Here is a great article by Michael Pearl entitled “Too Young To Spank” that clearly outlines his philosophy. I think some of the posters here had better get it straight from the horses mouth.
http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/articles/general-view/archive/2006/june/21/too-young-to-spank/
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D,
Here is a “snippet” I also took from an article from their website.
“But if your husband has sexually molested the children, you should approach him with it. If he is truly repentant (not just exposed) and is willing to seek counseling, you may feel comfortable giving him an opportunity to prove himself, as long as you know the children are safe. If there is any thought that they are not safe, or if he is not repentant and willing to seek help, then go to the law and have him arrested.”
http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/articles/general-view/archive/1999/september/01/abusive-husband/
Report comment to moderator
I’ve already pointed out his strange divorce of the word “spanking” from the action of hitting a child with a “spanking instrument”. I think 99% of people would consider that spanking.
I “trained” my six month olds with eye contact, tone and redirection. No hitting (with or without tools) and they got it just fine. Truly, you can be consistent about boundaries without yelling, anger, or hitting. Sometimes it seems like the rest of the world is painted with broad brushstrokes – as if we could not have respectful, kind, enjoyable children without training them in the manner the Pearls describe.
I consider God the Father my model for parenting, and I can not see Him treating me (let alone a small child!) the way Michael Pearl describes. I’ve skimmed TTUAC and read a lot on his website. My one sentence that I strive for is “gracious, slow to anger, abounding in steadfast love.”
Report comment to moderator
My my.
It is really sad what people will defend.
And, worse, despite evidence that shows other less hurtful methods work better.
Report comment to moderator
#174
I am in complete agreement.
Report comment to moderator
Mamawit, I’m not sure I understand the distinction of swatting a child too young to deserve a spanking. As to the “snippet,” I had read that whole letter, and can’t begin to imagine a wife whose husband has molested their children “giving him an opportunity to prove himself,” which sure seems to me like giving him a second chance and further access to the children. I was never molested, but I cannot imagine how much fear this kind of carelessness would breed in children. This is a complete betrayal of everything he should be as a man, husband, and father, and he doesn’t get “a second chance.” Not in this situation. It’s one thing if the cuckolded wife wants to give her husband a second chance, but she dare not make that choice for her children if he has sinned against them in such a way.
Report comment to moderator
#177
I also agree with you, Cheryl.
I just find it hard to imagine how people can twist the plain meaning of words to mean something else.
Or find the good and emphasize that while ignoring enormous amounts of bad.
If you have a pie, and there is only a spoonful of poo mixed in it, and the rest is beautiful, are you going to eat the pie because of the good parts?
Which one of us wouldn’t throw the pie out?
And, there’s a lot more than a spoonful of poo in the Pearl’s teachings.
Find other good teachings that don’t have the spoonful in them!
Report comment to moderator
MAMAWIT –
Great comments! I agree with everything you have said. This blog has been an eye-opener to say the least. It never ceases to amaze me how people can launch such a vicious attack on the Pearls while knowing so little about them. Besides that, they just listen to whatever sordid tale anyone is willing to publish and then exaggerate the details until they sound like they’re Nazis. If this is the kind of thing the Pearls get in the mail, I can’t imagine trying to defend myself from this onslaught. I would have a nervous breakdown, or die from stress. People take their words and make them mean something entirely different.
I’ll bet you have a great family! I know I love mine. Keep up the good work. The truth will win out in the end.
God bless you and yours,
–R
Report comment to moderator
TRS –
And if you have a baby in the bath, do you throw out the baby with the bathwater? I have a good book on logic you can borrow.
–R
Report comment to moderator
I think that ROSSIGNOL’s admonition in #60 is worth repeating. “People who don’t know anything about the Pearls & their methods should be careful what they say. They might find themselves breaking the 9th commandment (Thou shalt not bear false witness…..)” When all you know of people are a few quotes taken out of the larger context that would have provided the rounding out one needed to correctly understand the text, it is akin to bearing false witness. Beware. People can even do this with the Holy Bible. What if all someone ever read of the Bible was Proverbs 23:13-14
“Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.”
Report comment to moderator
Mamawait, assuming that others know nothing about the Pearls and their methods might also be breaking the ninth commandment. And really, read the link I gave in 170, or the one I gave earlier on an angry child. I’m not “bearing false witness” when I read (as I have) most everything they have posted on their website, in the full context that they themselves have provided, and disagree with much of what they say. And some of my strongest disagreement with them is theological; it follows that if they have a deeply erroneous theology, they will have deeply erroneous teaching.
I care about truth, and this is as good a place as any to grapple with it. Should Christians be unconcerned if we truly believe that false doctrine has led to false teaching, with dangerous ramifications for some children even if it has led to good results for others? The apostle Paul wouldn’t be silent in such a situation, I assure you. (I’m not saying he’d rebuke these specific people, but if he believed them to be in error, he would. So would Jesus.)
I strongly believe that there is much error in the opposite viewpoint, and that most of today’s parenting is too permissive. But I don’t think “obedience” is the most important goal of parenting, not even close. And I think some of this stuff is dangerous–and vile. Saying so (and giving evidence for what I dispute) isn’t bearing false witness.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D – Did you read the link I posted about “Too Young To Spank”? I wasn’t sure from what you wrote. I think they do a nice job of explaining why they are reluctant to use the word “spank.” There is such a range of meaning people can assign to that word. He is not attempting to get out of calling what he does spanking. He is just trying to be sure that whatever definition people automatically bring to that word doesn’t color what he is trying to teach. I had a step-father that would “spank” by taking a belt and beating my brother in a drunken rage. Mr. Pearl has worked with prison inmates for over 30 years and knows that this is a common understanding of the word “spank.” He is just trying to use a different word so as to distinguish his method from that abuse. AS for your comment about giving the husband a second chance. I too could not imagine being able to do this. I sure hope you caught his condition was if he is truly repentent and the children are safe. I know that Mr. Pearl has worked ministering to prison inmates on a volunteer basis and has seen many many changed lives. I am sure this is the basis for his counsel on that. He has seen first hand men that have changed their lives because of the power of repentence. I have read other articles where he chastises parents for not prosecuting molestors of their children. I have also read where he has chastised someone that was a rehabilitated sex offender that was in a pastoral position. His opinion was that even if you are rehabilitated, you should never put yourself in a position that would give you access to children again.
Report comment to moderator
Proverbs are not always to be taken literally.
Obviously, Lydia was beaten with a rod and she did die. And that’s a tragedy. Let’s not miss that.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D- I’m curious what specifically you find theologically erroneous?
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D.
“as long as you know the children are safe. If there is any thought that they are not safe, or if he is not repentant and willing to seek help, then go to the law and have him arrested.”
Did you miss this part? They said “as long as you KNOW the children are SAFE.” What part of grace do you not understand?
–R
Report comment to moderator
Kristens – I agree with you that it is a tragedy that Lydia was beaten and a tragedy that she died. I guess what I find hard to believe is that her parents were sincerely just trying to follow a child training method. I so wish I had my book right now, because I know there is mention of how often a little one won’t even cry when the rod is applied. I know this to be true of my kids. It just gets their attention. Now, if a method is being taught and it explicitly says that the little one won’t even cry often times, how does one go from that to think the author is telling her to beat her child until she dies? I’m not trying to defend what these parents did. I’m trying to defend the Pearls against being blamed for stupid or sick people taking their words and twisting them to suit their depraved plan.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D- I also care about truth. That is why I am defending the Pearls. They are godly, good people that don’t deserve to have their names smeared like this. I have to leave this blog now, but will check back tomorrow.
Report comment to moderator
#187
You obviously didn’t read the links in the article above. They showed that this family had NO history of abuse, and were well-known as godly, caring people.
You also missed the quotes from the Pearls on how to “discipline” one’s child until he or she was out of breath.
Report comment to moderator
#182
Cheryl, again, I find myself agreeing with you.
I HAVE read from the Pearl’s web site, and I find much of it, as Cheryl said, vile. And, I’m judging it from the “horse’s mouth” as they say, not just from what others are saying.
Report comment to moderator
And, like Cheryl, I truly feel that too much permissive parenting is very bad for society and for individual children. So, I’m not a “no spank” person, or someone who would have allowed my 2-year old (or any other age) to run around annoying others in restaurants, or to run out into traffic.
My kids obeyed me. I expected them to.
I’ve controlled classrooms of 30 plus children.
I have respectful teens.
And, all without using the Pearl’s methods. In order to avoid one extreme, it is not necessary to go to another.
Report comment to moderator
Mamawit and Rossignol – Do you really not see that the advice the Pearls give can be dangerous to families?
It is this sort of advice from the Pearls that we are concerned about:
“Our goal is to cause the child to voluntarily surrender his will. We want to impress upon him the severity of his disobedience. It takes time and thoughtfulness for the child to come to repentance. I have told a child I was going to give him 10 licks. I count out loud as I go… Then I would have him stand in front of me and ask him why he got the spanking. If his answer showed that he was rebellious and defiant, he would get several more licks. Again he would be questioned as to his offense. If he showed total submission, we put it all behind us, but if he were still rebellious, we would continue until he gave over his will…
If you ever have a child who stands his ground of defiance and you let him win, you have lost his heart forever—unless you are able to go back and win a confrontation and keep on winning. If you ever let his rebellion triumph just one time, it makes it much harder to conquer in the future. After he gains the upper hand, one victory on your part will not be sufficient. You will have to persevere in several contests of wills until he is convinced that he can never stand against your authority.”
Report comment to moderator
As far as the “poo/pie” analogy, I would be hard pressed to find any writer, leader, psychologist, or self-proclaimed expert who gives flawless, perfect advice on how to raise your children. It has been argued that Michael and Debi Pearl have a “fatal flaw”. However, I am not hearing that a parent needs to exercise discernment, carefulness, and wisdom from above (there but for the asking) when looking to other sources than the Bible for child rearing.
Even if the Pearls give the worst advice on the planet, what a parent does with that advice is up to them, correct? To take any advice to the extreme that the parents in the original article did is not the fault of the Pearls.
Also, even if this crusade is effective and the Pearls are run out of town on a rail, do we suppose that this is the end of faulty parenting advice on the web (or even in our own churches)? Are the most vehement opponents willing to go directly to the Pearls to address their concerns?
Report comment to moderator
I am concerned that the “no spank at all” people will use this extreme case to infringe on Parental rights. I wonder how many children are abused each year by parents who have have lost control due to wimpy methods and one day get so frustrated that they just lose it. Also as I mentioned earlier abuse of parent by children is on the rise. Many parents are afraid to speak up for fear of being blamed or afraid to defend themselves for fear of being accused of being the abuser. Google “parents abused by children”. It has become such a problem the UK that the police are having to change the definition of domestic violence to include it. Why are people so incapable of balance?
Report comment to moderator
Kristen: “I “trained” my six month olds with eye contact, tone and redirection. No hitting (with or without tools) and they got it just fine.”
This is exactly what I’m talking about. You can make your displeasure known without ever touching a child. The idea of tying a child down so he’ll fall asleep is just abusive. Have none of you as adults ever had a night when you couldn’t settle down? This is just absurd! Now sometimes you might need to swat someone to get their attention, but a switch on an infant?
Report comment to moderator
#193
Of course, the parents are ultimately responsible. The thing that makes this different IMO is the degree.
1) Half the pie or more is poo (if we stick with that analogy).
2) The cult-like following of the people.
3) The sheer numbers of evangelical, conservative families following this advice. (And, so many home schooling families!)
4) The seriously concerning theological flaws.
Personally, I’m not ready to run anyone out on the rails. I believe in free speech. I think they have the right to their books and their web site.
But, I think you underestimate the cult-like attachment many of their followers feel, and the number of churches who have promoted this material uncritically.
If we can get people to LOOK at what they are really doing, and approach the material with a critical eye (INTENDING to sift it for the good and dump the bad from the get-go), then I think we will have done what I would like to see.
Report comment to moderator
Kbells,
*** “so can bathing a child, sleeping in the bed with a child, hugging a child, taking pictures of children. Do we need to outlaw all that because some perv abused them.” ***
I’m not aware of any cases of someone charged with sex abuse for merely hugging or sleeping with a child. By contrast, if you go to spankingcanbesexualabuse.org, you will see a multitude of cases where such charges were filed over spanking. Why do you suppose that is?
The pornographic association is a lot stronger, too, as a simple Google search proves. (How many adult websites are in the results for “hugging” compared to “spanking”?)
You don’t have to agree that spanking should be illegal, but it’s important for people to be aware of this dark side it has. At a minimum, parents ought to warn their kids that some adults may have bad reasons for wanting to spank them.
Report comment to moderator
#189 Are you referring to the link in Megan Dunham’s article “this tragedy” or some other link? I did read the link and I don’t see anywhere where it describes the family.
#192 When you discipline your children, are you trying to get them to submit or just to stop the behavior? The Pearl’s regularly emphasize the need to get at the root of the behavior which is the attitude of rebellion present in some children. I have 4 kids. I only have 1 that ever stood defiantly to me in the face of being disciplined. I found this exact method that you are so critical of to be very effective. I would not have done this with my other, more sensitive children because they didn’t need it. I also wonder if you are attaching a wrong meaning to the wording used. We are not talking about an angry, out of control parent who is wildly beating a child anywhere on his body. The Pearl’s are careful to teach that the parent be not angry and under control. They are not even to be all that stern. I guess matter-of-fact would be the attitude that is necessary. When they talk about licks they mean using some sort of flexible instrument like a thin tree branch that will bend and yield so as to only give a small sting, not a bruising or beating on the back of the upper leg (last I checked there were no vital organs in danger on the bottom or the meaty part of the upper leg). These are administered calmly and slowly. When they speak of getting the child to totally submit, they simply mean he/she isn’t still defiantly asserting his independence, but has a proper degree of yielding to parental authority. They advocate breaking the will, not the spirit of the child. In fact they repeatedly emphasize the need to be cheerful and joyful with your children. One would think after reading this blog that the main thing the Pearl’s teach is to spank your children. Quite the contrary.
“A young parent that is full of good cheer has 75 percent of what it takes to be a successful child trainer. Everyone is attracted to joy. Children will do anything for one who enjoys them. Once they get in the joy zone, they never want to do anything that might jeopardize that relationship. A parent of good cheer can deliver a more effective rebuke in less time and without damaging the relationship than a legalistic grump could do with a thousand Bible verses and a hundred spankings. If you are cheerful in the Lord Jesus Christ you will be a dynamic child trainer. You will be to children what a flower is to a bee.”
http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/articles/general-view/archive/2009/december/03/cheerful-authoritative-consistent/
Also, for those that used some chopped up quotes about marriage in abusive situations. Lest you would think that Mr. Pearl is a monster and legalist in this department, I just want to post another link to round out your perspective a bit on how Mr. Pearl would counsel men. http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/articles/general-view/archive/2007/august/15/men-only-not-boys/
This will be my last post on this subject because it has already taken me away from my kids for too long. I just want to reiterate that these people have helped countless people and are now being blamed for someone else’s abusive, foolish behavior. If we indict the Pearl’s we would also have to indict the Author of the book that wrote:
If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place. They shall say to the elders of his town, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. Deuteronomy 21:18
Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell. Proverbs 23:13-14
Plenty of people have quoted from the Bible to justify their abuse. Do we chuck that book and tar and feather it’s author (God)? Some do, but most know that it was used inappropriately. The same is happening with the Pearl’s writing. If we are smart enough to have these verses in our Bibles and know that it doesn’t advocate beating our children to death, I think that people can read what the Pearl’s have written and not take it to mean to beat their children to death or anywhere close to it, unless they need a convenient scapegoat.
Report comment to moderator
Someone who knew the family:
http://lauriemo.blogspot.com/2010/02/in-which-i-speak-of-unspeakable.html
Report comment to moderator
Rossingol, 186, quotes the article I referenced and responds:
Cheryl D.
“as long as you know the children are safe. If there is any thought that they are not safe, or if he is not repentant and willing to seek help, then go to the law and have him arrested.”
Did you miss this part? They said “as long as you KNOW the children are SAFE.” What part of grace do you not understand?
Well, this last sentence, “What part of grace do you not understand?” isn’t called for, and misses the point. He may kill a child and then be “repentant,” but the godly response isn’t to say, “Well, he has repented, so now I trust him, and I’m not going to have him arrested, and I’ll give him access to our other children.” It isn’t grace to give someone access to one’s children just because in your opinion he has repented enough. (Knowing that kids are safe is rather subjective–he needs to tell her some steps to “be sure” that they are safe, not just to “know” it.) Remember that the Pearls are even advising the woman not to talk to her own pastor. So basically her husband talks to her and convinces her by his words that he is repentant, so she doesn’t call authorities, tell her pastor, or do anything else tangible to safeguard the children because she believes him and “knows” her kids are safe. And this may sound like showing grace to one’s husband, but really it is taking the easy way out and refusing to protect one’s children.
I’ve done quite a bit of reading on molestation (both because I’ve dealt with some girls who had been and because I expected to be mothering them when I was a foster mom), and one thing that many of their stories have in common is that other adults didn’t believe them or, if they did believe them, they didn’t act to protect them from the abuser. The sin against them was simply driven underground; it didn’t stop happening. And the girls’ trust of other adult relatives was destroyed too–those who should have protected them did not do so.
If someone rapes me, the last thing I need is for someone else to show “grace” to the rapist and allow him to continue to rape me. That isn’t grace at all. Possibly if the husband is out of the home for years and shows repentance and a changed life, he might be allowed limited, supervised access to the children. But as far as I’m concerned, a man who molests children must never be given a second chance outside the courtroom. He must be arrested. No ministry should ever hire him to work with children (even if he is genuinely repentant), and no way would I let him have unsupervised access to children–even if they are his children.
Now, all this is assuming that it has been well established that he has actually molested a kid. If there is serious reason to believe he didn’t do so (a chronic liar accuses him with no evidence), that’s a whole different story. But if the wife knows that her husband has molested their children, then she should be looking about showing “grace” to her children, not to her husband.
Report comment to moderator
In response to “When they talk about licks they mean using some sort of flexible instrument like a thin tree branch that will bend and yield so as to only give a small sting, not a bruising or beating on the back of the upper leg (last I checked there were no vital organs in danger on the bottom or the meaty part of the upper leg).”
How Lydia died: she was spanked enough to have tissue damage. The tissues leached potassium into her bloodstream. When the potassium-laced blood circulated to her heart, it caused her heart to stop. Bruises generally don’t show up immediately, and because she was african, bruising is very hard to see. In fact, most doctors have difficulty discerning bruising on dark skin. Her parents may have believed they were only giving her small repetitive stings.
Report comment to moderator
Amen!
Child sexual abusers have something WRONG with them. They are not able to change the desires they have.
So, while they may be repentant, they must NEVER be put into a place where they can be tempted again.
They must never work with children. They must not be allowed around them without supervision.
There is no way to forgive and live with a man who has sexually molested his own children unless you give the children up to live with someone else and live with him alone.
Grace may require *forgiveness* if the man is truly repentant, but it does not require *trust* ever again for something like this.
Report comment to moderator
Whoops, I meant to point out that I’m pretty sure that if the wife in this case knowingly gives the husband continued access to the children, and he hurts them, she will go to jail as well. I don’t know how all the details of this work out (I’m pretty sure it’s still true that a wife can’t be forced to testify against her husband), but if she simply covers the abuse, doesn’t report it, allows the children further access to someone who is a known danger to them, and he is later arrested and charged, I’m fairly sure she will be seen as an accessory to the crime, and she is likely to lose the children as well. This is a legal issue, not just a personal one, and though probably every parent has at least once reacted in anger to one’s child, and a wife might choose to “cover” one instance of borderline child abuse, sexual abuse really is a whole different issue, and covering it because one trusts one’s husband is repentant doesn’t seem wise.
Report comment to moderator
I just read through many of the posts on this thread, and a question occurs to me. There are a couple of people who defend the Pearls, who claim to have raised wonderful children by their methods, and who say that the Pearls are being misrepresented. The description these people give of the Pearls’ methods sound pretty much just like the methods of Dr. Dobson in Dare to Discipline–methods which most conservative Christians would commend. Yet, when I consider the Pearls’ theological assumptions, as well as specific quotes from their books that have been posted, they’re much more extreme and theologically problematic than anything I’ve seen from Dr. Dobson. So, I’d be curious to hear from the Pearls’ how they would characterize the difference between the Pearls’ methods and philosophy and Dr. Dobsons’. I’d also be curious to know why they chose to follow the Pearls rather than the mainstream “Christian child-discipline guru,” Dr. Dobson.
Report comment to moderator
“..I’d be curious to hear from the Pearls’..”
I’m sure they’ll quickly open a new internet tab, and rush right over to this official “hearing”.
Report comment to moderator
Ree –
I wouldn’t characterize what the Pearl’s teach as “their method” of child training anymore than I would characterize my grandma telling me to eat balanced meals as “her method” of staying healthy. I would characterize both as good old-fashioned sense, and a reaction against all of the nonsense that the so-called “experts” of the day advocate in both areas (child rearing and nutrition). Mr. Pearl did not develop some method of his own and then write a book hoping to promote it. He raised his kids using good old-fashioned, firm but loving discipline and then wrote a small booklet when asked by many people over and over again how he managed to raise such great kids. It took off from there. It was meant for a small circle of people in his rural community. I read Dare to Discipline and The Strong Willed Child about 9 years ago and I cannot completely remember how it is different than what the Pearl’s teach. I can remember that I read them and really tried to apply what I learned. I also remember still feeling very frustrated and that I could get control of my daughter’s behavior, but not her attitude and heart. After reading the Pearl’s book (really it is just a very short booklet –not a book even), it just clicked for me. I don’t know that it is actually a whole lot different than what Dr. Dobson teaches, it just was so direct and gave so many examples and how to handle them that I could then “see” what I was supposed to do. Actually, it wasn’t even that I was seeing WHAT I was supposed to do (although that was part of it) I was more seeing HOW I should view my child. I guess if I go back to my original analogy, I would say it like this : If what Dobson and Peal were teaching on were diet and health as opposed to child-rearing, the difference would be as follows: Dr. Dobson would tell me to eat a balanced diet consisting of protein, fruits and veggies and complex carbohydrates. He would then site the various medical and scientific journals that support those claims. Nothing wrong with that, but some people might need a little more help than that. Mr. Pearl would tell me exactly how to raise my own chickens for meat and eggs and why this is superior to store bought. He would tell me exactly how to grow an organic garden. He would explain how simple sugar wreaks havoc on ones immune system. He would then provide a monthly newsletter with articles on gardening, canning, raising hens, goats, etc. There would be many people writing in with how they do it that he would publish right along with his own articles. He also would read every letter sent to him and personally answer any question a person asked. I have read on this blog someone referring to Mr. Pearl and the people that follow him as cultish. That is just ridiculous. He is all about empowering people, and getting people to think critically for themselves, rather than always relying on “experts” in every area of life to do their thinking for them. (Now, I know he doesn’t throw every “expert” out with the bathwater. He just thinks that our society was built on a can-do attitude and is quick becoming one full of people that allow “professionals” to raise their kids for them.) People just value and gravitate toward someone that takes the time to teach them and empower them. Is that really cultish? Really, other than this I can’t really explain how it is that different. You could just read their main book To Train Up a Child. It would only take about an hour to read and it only costs $5.95 if you care to make the comparison between he and Dobson yourself.
Kristens – how do you know this about how Lydia died? It didn’t say so in the article or link. Also, I find it hard to believe that tissue damage could be caused by a few stinging licks administered in a controlled, calm manner on the back of the upper leg as the Pearl’s teach to do. I would like to know how many times this poor child was spanked and where on her body. I highly doubt it was done in the way described by Mr. Pearl in TTUAC. If so, wouldn’t the same tissue damage be caused by any other sort of spanking advocated by any number of other authors on child-training (Dobson, Tripp, etc.). I think there is a whole lot more to this story than meets the eye. I think it will eventually be found out, but unfortunately the damage to the Pearl’s name will have been done on this forum at least.
Report comment to moderator
I also remember still feeling very frustrated and that I could get control of my daughter’s behavior, but not her attitude and heart.
******But, it is NOT your JOB to be in control of her attitude and heart!!!!
That is the job of the Holy Spirit working in and with your daughter.
It is completely and utterly heretical to suggest that someone can control the attitude and heart of someone else. That simply is much higher than our job description.
Report comment to moderator
I liked this quote on a blog discussing this issue:
“Sure, I could dig through my cat’s litter box looking for Tootsie Rolls…but I’d have to paw through a lot of excrement to do so. And I sure wouldn’t want to eat the candy once I found it!”
Report comment to moderator
#204
From what I can tell, advocates paw through the litter box, pick out the acceptable sounding points that are Biblical and pretty standard amongst conservative families, and then either ignore the rest or “rename” it something else.
For example, it’s not “spanking” or “beating” it is “licking” and “switching.” It isn’t “corporeal punishment” it is “firm discipline.” It isn’t hitting a baby, it is lightly “licking” a baby — not with a switch (oh no!) but with a little twig off a tree (as if that weren’t the original definition of a switch.)
And, of course, we ignore all the successful children and parents who’ve never used a switch, a rod, or massive forms of corporeal punishment (redefined), and we ignore all the bad theology (such as we can all be sinless and make our children sinless too!)
;-p
Report comment to moderator
Thanks, Mamawit. I reread what I wrote, and I saw that I said I wanted to hear from the Pearls, but I meant to say from the Pearls’ defenders, which is what you are, so again, thanks.
It seems to me that loving parents with relatively easy-to-discipline children can take what the Pearls say and filter it through their own loving, Biblical worldview lens, and end up with great success. And it’s perfectly understandable that you’d feel defensive, in regard to both the Pearls (toward whom you consider yourself to owe a great debt of gratitude) and your own parental judgment and choices. But for you guys who defend them to dismiss their false and harmful theology (and some of their statements about discipline) as just minor issues of little consequence, I believe, is seriously harmful. As Cheryl noted, ideas do have consequences, and the theological idea of sinless perfection is a dangerous teaching with all kinds of sinister consequences. The gospel, rightly understood, is liberating and life-giving–but wrongly understood, it can be spiritually and physically deadly.
Report comment to moderator
Mamawit,
I read about the elevated potassium levels in the bloodstream (which will cause full cardiac arrest) due to tissue breakdown in several news reports. I know the prosecutor reported that the only spanking instrument the other children said their parents used was 1/4 inch plumbing line and it matched marking on the children’s lower backs, buttocks and legs. If you google, you will find multiple sources for all of that information.
We can’t be sure what went on in the Schatz home, but what I have read does not seem all that inconsistent from what the Pearls instruct on their website and books.
Report comment to moderator
TRS in 208: you do know that cat poop often looks like tootsie rolls, right? What an shocking image and laugh you provided for me.
Report comment to moderator
Ree – What specifically do you deem “harmful theology?”
Cheryl D & TRS – I do agree with you about the danger of giving a sexual offender second chances. I also don’t think I would advise a woman who has had her children molested to give the husband a second chance, or to stay married to him while he is in jail. I have been pondering this for a few days and trying to reconcile this quoted article with other writing that I have read by Mr. Pearl where he is very adamant about parents needing to be so careful of their children being abused in this way. He even has a c.d. of a talk he gave on this subject called “When Forgiveness is a Sin.” In it, he talks about the faulty idea that one can just forgive someone that has sexually molested thier child and never seek legal consequences all in the name of forgiveness. Admitedly, this article doesn’t seem to be consistent with what I have heard him teach elsewhere. I wonder, if it is a case of vague wording. Could Mr. Pearl have meant to say that one can give a husband that has been physically violent a second chance, but not necessarily have meant someone that has sexually abused? This would seem more consistent with what I have known him to teach elsewhere. It is true that a man can lose his temper and be rougher with his wife and children then he meant to be, and truly be repentatnt and be restored with a second chance (provided the person truly is repentent, not just caught as Mr. Pearl notes, and then children are safe). I don’t think the same can be said for someone who molests. This is a sickness that isn’t caused in the heat of anger. THat isn’t to say that I thin physical abuse is not as heinous as sexual abuse, it is just to say that I can see how one can believe that it is worthy of a second chance in a case of true repentence. I actually know a couple where this was the case. I also believe Mr. Pearl has worked and known with many men where this is the case. I intend to write to him and point out how his article makes it sound like he thinks sexual abusers should be allowed back in the home and see what he says. While I wouldn’t think it necessary for a woman to stay married to a sexual abuser while in jail, I don’t think it is unbiblical to recommend it. I keep in mind that I have not spent 30 years in ministry to these men, so I don’t have the advantage of seeing some of these lives redeemed and serving Christ in a powerful way because of godly wives that kept speaking truth to them and loving them when they were most unlovely. I know Mike Pearl has seen this many times, and it makes him see things differently than I do.
Everyone else – I have met Mr. and Mrs. Pearl and they are very sweet, warm, loving people. They love to laugh and they exude a joy and peace to all that are around them. They truly love the Lord and have spent their lives in service to him by serving the lowest among us. They provide Bible material free to any prison inmate that writes to them. They provide Bible material free to any military person that writes to them. They use any profit from their books to fund their translation projects to get a comic book bible that they created out to many unreached people groups because it is so much faster than waiting for the whole Bible to be translated in those languages. They fund theses efforts completely out of the sales of their books. They could be very rich right now. They have tens of thousands of subscribers to their montly newsletter that purchase their books. They live humble lives and only seek to get the gospel out to as many people as they can. This is their main “gig.” I think it is fine for people to question another believers teaching on any point, but I am so disappoited with the tone and accusations of so many in this thread, and with the author of this original article. I know that many unbelievers read these articles and posts and I am saddened to think what impression this thread has left them of Christians.
Report comment to moderator
Please forgive the typos and misspells. For some reason when I type anything long, it keeps scrolling beyond where I can read, and I just have to “blindly” type without getting to see the results.
Report comment to moderator
“I know that many unbelievers read these articles and posts and I am saddened to think what impression this thread has left them of Christians.”
The web has opened up new ways to take each other “to task” in front of unbelievers.
Report comment to moderator
TRS- When I say that I couldn’t get control of the attitude or heart, what I mean is that I was big enough and “powerful” enough over a three year old to make her stop whatever behavior I didn’t want, but I couldn’t get her to willingly yield and carry an attitude of wanting to do right. When I followed what was taught in TTUAC, that changed. I do not mean to say that I have absolute control over their every attitude and their heart. They are still sinners, and prone to yield to their flesh, just like me. I just meant that instead of daily battles of the will, my daughter began to want to do right. Now, I do have 3 other more compliant daughters. If I had only had these three, and not my first, I may not have understood these words if they were coming from someone else. Anyone that has had a strong-willed child, will know what I mean. Not all children automatically want to do right. Some do and some don’t. I do have one child that I barely have to raise an eyebrow to and she is “disciplined.” This was how I was as a child. If I had only had her and read what the Pearl’s taught, I may have had some of the same feelings as some on this blog.
Just yesterday at church, I watched this poor mother trying to get a handle on her 7 or 8 year old son. He was being so beliigerent and rude. He would not walk. He would flail on the ground yelling at her and she was desperately trying to get him to church. I felt sorry for her and for her son. If I could have talked to her, I would have told her that she might want to consider tying this.
“Our goal is to cause the child to voluntarily surrender his will. We want to impress upon him the severity of his disobedience. It takes time and thoughtfulness for the child to come to repentance. I have told a child I was going to give him 10 licks. I count out loud as I go… Then I would have him stand in front of me and ask him why he got the spanking. If his answer showed that he was rebellious and defiant, he would get several more licks. Again he would be questioned as to his offense. If he showed total submission, we put it all behind us, but if he were still rebellious, we would continue until he gave over his will…”
NOw, some may bristle, but I guarantee you that the boy would have felt better in a hurry, all without a big long lecture. He would feel the safety of knowing his mama was in charge. This isn’t necessary for all kids, but it is for some. That is all the Pearl’s teach.
Ree – I only wish I was as loving and patient as the Pearls! I don’t have to filter anything through my worldview. I also don’t think they teach sinless perfection.
Report comment to moderator
mamawit,
The scroll hindering you find, is kind of a “we-can’t-let-you-go-on-and-on-and-on” in some systems. It appears like a gentle, “time-to-consolidate” your post signal.
You might try creating your post in notepad or another text writing app, mark the text, “copy” using ctrl-c, then “paste” using ctrl-v.
Report comment to moderator
Here’s what he teaches. Answering the Critics by Michael Pearl
He responds that he does not teach “sinless perfection” which he defines as a state in which it is impossible to sin. But he then goes on to say that he does teach that it’s possible for man to live sinlessly. He gives the example of people, through Christ, overcoming outward sins to which they were in bondage–examples any Christian could give a hearty amen to. But his teaching on the true nature of sin is false and dangerous. He essentially denies the Biblical doctrine of total depravity.
He then responds to critic who have accused him of being a Pelagian by citing some key beliefs of Pelagius and then denying them. That’s good as far as it goes, but I think that the heresy of outright Pelagianism was fairly successfully eliminated in the 5th century. But Mr. Pearl can most certainly be categorized as semi-Pelagian in his teachings.
Report comment to moderator
Mytoosense,
Is that why they have that annoying feature–to subtly hint that people should keep their posts short? Well apparently the hint went way over my head.
I just do the best I can by reading over my posts in the box in which I type them, but I almost always miss something. The best kind of edit feature in my book is the kind where you can edit after you post.
Report comment to moderator
#219
Agreed, and, like Facebook, I would like to be able to remove and/or redo a comment.
Report comment to moderator
#216
Mamawit,
Again, I completely understand about parents who have allowed their child to get out of control. I sympathize, but I also get angry, when I see parents allowing their kids throw temper tantrums, to hit them, to yell at them, to curse them, and so on.
Occasionally, I even watch the “Nanny” show (forgot the full name), because it is so eye-opening about what some parents will permit and then wonder why they are SO miserable and why their kids are SO miserable (plus, my kids like the show and can’t believe it either!)
The question is one of DEGREE. I am not arguing for the above. In fact, I’m totally against it. I believe in consistency, and the parent being in charge, and I have spanked my kids on occasion. I don’t think an *occasional* slap on the hand when appropriate is wrong, and I don’t think missing dinner on occasion is wrong.
My kids are generally very well-behaved, if a bit on the lazy side, which flaw I contribute almost entirely to ME and the fact that I don’t enforce anti-lazy behavior as much as I do polite behavior or intellectual behavior, or kind behavior.
I do believe that you get what you expect out of children, for the most part.
But, what you fail to realize is that I get the good behavior (minus some of the lazy behavior!), that the Nanny gets the good behavior, and that I got good behavior as a teacher in the classroom for over 14 years, WITHOUT CORPOREAL PUNISHMENT (except, very occasionally, with my own kids) and without using a whip made out of ANYTHING.
In other words, you use arguments from one extreme as an excuse to go to another extreme…completely avoiding all the possibilities in between.
In order to get good behavior, and compliant children, it is not necessary to use a tube to hit them for every infraction, or to place temptation in front of them so that you can hit them when they succumb, or to break their wills. It simply isn’t.
Report comment to moderator
#218
Okay, now the man has just been insulting…to me personally. Apparently, I can only disagree with him if I’m a “homeschooling lesbian” or a liar?
That’s just downright nasty.
And, yet his followers would say that our legitimate discussion is nasty? Look to your leader, ladies!
Report comment to moderator
TRS,
After reading your #222, I looked at the link in #218, and I don’t think he is saying you can only disagree with him if you’re a homeschooling lesbian or a liar. He said that there are two primary groups opposing him. To me that implies that there are other people who oppose him also, but the bulk of the opposition comes from those two groups. (Whether he is correct in his description of those two groups, I have no idea. That is the only link I have read on this entire thread, and the only place I ever heard of the Pearls before is in previous threads on this blog, discussing the husband-wife relationship.)
Report comment to moderator
With a reread, I think you are probably right, Pauline. Although, I disagree with him. I think he has a lot more legitimate opposition than these two groups he’s identified.
Honestly, how many homeschooling lesbians are there???
Report comment to moderator
And, it really still does seem like a way to marginalize his opposition.
“Really, people, the only serious opposition I have is the homeschooling lesbians and the liars. The rest aren’t primary and aren’t worth mentioning.”
I know he didn’t write that, but it is what comes across to me.
Report comment to moderator
Mamawit (216)–quote of Pearls and then your own comments:
Again he would be questioned as to his offense. If he showed total submission, we put it all behind us, but if he were still rebellious, we would continue until he gave over his will…”
NOw, some may bristle, but I guarantee you that the boy would have felt better in a hurry, all without a big long lecture. He would feel the safety of knowing his mama was in charge. This isn’t necessary for all kids, but it is for some. That is all the Pearl’s teach.
The problem here is that the child who needs this kind of correction is the very child who might very well continue to rebel under it . . . and might end up dead if neither he nor his parents ever “surrenders” during this session. One thing I was taught in the training for foster parents is that one reason that foster parents aren’t allowed to spank is that these kids have often been beaten. So, you give a normal spanking and the kid isn’t even fazed. You then spank harder, since you think he’s showing “hardness of heart.” But in order to spank hard enough to get his attention, you have to spank hard enough that you yourself are abusing him.
Parents who adopt older kids from overseas (as this child was) often deal with children who are emotionally unable to bond with people. They don’t show emotions, love or anything at all. To a parent looking for signs of rebellion, that can look like it. And it’s very, very dangerous for a parent to put himself in a position of continuing to spank (even with “breaks” to ascertain a child’s mood) until the child surrenders. Remember that they say start with ten switches at a time, more if necessary, with no top number given! So, you switch the kid 15 times, and he shows no repentance. So you switch another 15 times, but a little harder this time. And so on. This system may not be meant to lead to abuse, but it is nearly inevitable that it sometimes will do so–especially with adopted children, particularly strong-willed children, angry parents, and probably a few other categories.
And by the way, those who are concerned about holding this discussion in front of unbelievers: That’s a legitimate concern to raise, but I don’t see it as relevant here. That’s because we have two sides:
(1) Those who say they support the Pearls because their method isn’t abusive, and
(2) Those who say they don’t support them, because in their minds the method is dangerous and potentially abusive.
Worst-case scenario, in other words, we’re accusing fellow Christians of sin (and it shouldn’t surprise anyone here that Christians are sinners). We’re showing concern for the body, and showing great concern for children. This is a good thing, no matter which “side” we come down on. Would it be better to hold this discussion behind closed doors? Perhaps. But this story has gone beyond that by the time children were dying. And because children are dying, a very public caution is in order, lest other parents follow the same path.
BTW, TRS, in fairness, in that link he did say he can’t claim to be sinless because his wife and kids know better. He does seem to lean toward sinless perfection, and perhaps even more dangerous, toward the idea that if one continues to discipline a child in such an extended discipline session, it is guaranteed to work. That is, if you parent right you can know 100% for certain that your children will obey. That’s dangerous (physically, morally, and spiritually) because it isn’t true.
Report comment to moderator
1) Crime scene.
Read/Pray.
2) Police go to crime scene.
3) Evidence leads to parents A and/or B.
4) Lawyers.
5) Judgment.
6) Sentence.
7) Prison.
Report comment to moderator
9) The number 8 in #227 was translated to an icon by the system. Think “8″.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D – as I have pointed out before, TTUAC discusses the issue of foster / adoptive parents and teaches not to use any form of physical discipline.
Report comment to moderator
I think that this discussion of his methods and theology is good and fine to have on a blog. What I think is disturbing is that this is not just a blog, but a respected news website. Megan Dunham isn’t just giving her opinion on her own blog. I would think that the publishers of World Magazine would be concerned about libel, slander and defamation laws. The article doesn’t stop at just criticizing his methods. If she were, that would be fine. This is America and we have freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The problem is that she is accusing him of being responsible or at least morally liable (if not legally) for the death of a child. That is a serious charge. It is especially serious against a man that all evidence shows has been tirelessly working to promote the cause of Christ his entire life.
Report comment to moderator
Mamawit, foster/adoptive parents are just one of my examples, and anyway, how can the Pearls all but say these methods are guaranteed to work and you’re outside of the will of God if you don’t use them, and then exempt adoptive children? Realistically, they take too much care to say you must use their methods for any small “caution” to be heeded. (I told one of their proponents about this death, and mentioned that she was adopted from another country and probably had attachment disorder, and she rejected that possibility as “psychobabble.” Those who really believe in this method may well use it in spite of such warnings, unless they are really detailed in those warnings, of why this is dangerous for such children. And in my mind, it is also dangerous for some other children.)
As to the blog post: The law will decide whether there’s any legal liability, and I doubt seriously that they will decide that. But are they at least potentially morally liable, if people follow their teaching (even if they exaggerate it a little) and a child ends up dead? Well, yes, I would say so. When I was writing my kids’ books (unpublished so far) I included a scene where one child warns another not to eat a wild mushroom,, because it’s probably poisonous. A lady in my critique group told me that even pointing that out made me liable to a lawsuit if a child read my book and then ate a mushroom, even though I was saying not to do so. She said I’d made it an “attractive nuisance.” I don’t know if she’s correct or not, but yes, the authors of a parenting book whose advice is used, and a child ends up dead, even if the parents used the advice inadvisably, if they were following some instructions precisely (the form of spanking instrument) and in others they were following the “spirit” of the instruction (the child must never win, so keep doing it until he submits his will), then the author does bear some moral responsibility. Absolutely. If he gives repeated strong cautions, “Never do this with an adopted child, and this is why,” then he might not bear moral responsibility in this situation. But if he passes over such a caution lightly, or if the advice is similarly used with deadly results with a rebellious but non-adopted child, then he bears moral responsibility.
Yes, it’s a serious charge–but Scripture gives very serious responsibility to a man who would be a teacher. And parents need to be warned that this “fail-safe” method isn’t–this blog is a very good place for that discussion.
Report comment to moderator
#230
This is a BLOG, not the magazine part of the World Magazine. It is comparable to the Op. Ed. parts of a newspaper. It is full of opinion, and is expected to be.
Therefore, it is perfectly acceptable for Ms. Dunham to post her opinion as strongly as she desires.
Public figures have a very hard time proving slander or libel. As public figures (which the Pearls are) they have to have extra strong proof that someone is deliberately lying about them or deliberately misrepresenting them in order to cause them harm.
Since most juries and judges would find their practices unacceptable and would likely agree with Ms. Dunham, and since it would be nearly impossible anyway to prove that she was deliberately lying or posting with malicious intent, I think the chances of the Pearls suing her slim, and of suing her successfully pretty much at less than zero.
Report comment to moderator
And, even if World Magazine published this in their printed magazine, I think it would be virtually impossible for them to be successfully sued.
Again, as public figures, the Pearls open themselves up to criticism. And, since they’d have to prove deliberate lying and malicious intent…they’d be pretty much guaranteed to lose in a court case.
Report comment to moderator
People still use spanking implements, etc.? Yikes. My mom spanked me, but only with her hand. And, I cried, but not at all because it hurt, (it didn’t really), but because it was symbolic of her disappointment. That was always more important to me.
Report comment to moderator
TJS Catlover, there’s divided opinion over whether a hand or an instrument is better. Some say that an “instrument” is better because the child won’t associate the parent’s hand with pain. I suppose that’s more relevant if in your mind “spanking” means reaching out and randomly slapping the child. If the child has been told to get into position for a spanking, and then spanked, he probably has no great risk that he’ll duck away from a parent’s hand when a parent reaches to touch him, out of fear that the hand means a spanking. But regardless, a spanking tool is not innately more inhumane than a spanking with a hand; there are different opinions as to which is better, and why. A hand definitely limits the force of a spanking more than anything else does; if nothing else, because the parent also feels the pain, but also because most people can’t hit as hard with their hands as with something harder held in the hand.
My own parents used a couple of different tools, including what was called a “kid swatter” (a fly swatter that had never been used for its intended purpose). That was probably a good tool–it stung but didn’t actually hurt, and certainly couldn’t cause injury. But it also has a larger surface area than most “paddles,” so in that sense it probably wasn’t ideal. (Too easy to include the back or legs in the swat, and it did rather burn if it hit the legs.)
Report comment to moderator
I don’t agree with using anything but the hand.
I was spanked with a hand. I spanked my kids with a hand. I’ve never seen them shy from my hand, nor did I from my parents.
It is pretty obvious when a parent is angry and when one is going to be punished.
Report comment to moderator
TRS, I’ve never totally made up my mind on that one myself, and haven’t had to, not being a mother. The few times I have given a kid a swat or two, it has been with the hand (as in a toddler persistently going for something dangerous after being told no, or one slapping me across the face because he didn’t want to go to bed). I do know the dangers of using spanking instruments, but haven’t actually “researched” the question; I just know there’s debate. I know a lot of parents who use a wooden spoon, and that seems to be probably a better choice than any of the instruments that used to be used–it’s not heavy enough to hurt with a proper spanking. But between that and the hand, I don’t have an opinion or a preference.
Report comment to moderator
For those interested in hearing Michael Pearl commenting on this situation, check out this site:
http://michaeldebipearl.blogspot.com/2010/03/leaping-to-wrong-conclusion.html
Here is another one written by what seems to be someone who normally is critical of Michael Pearl, but in this case is defending him.
http://whitemail.blogspot.com/2010/03/trouble-in-paradise-one-member-dead-one.html
Report comment to moderator
Mamawit,
At least in my case, I don’t blame the Pearls for the death of Lydia Shatz.
However, I still find the Pearl’s child-rearing philosophy to be abhorrent.
And, as I said in a comment further up: “If we can get people to LOOK at what they are really doing, and approach the material with a critical eye (INTENDING to sift it for the good and dump the bad from the get-go), then I think we will have done what I would like to see.”
Report comment to moderator
Mamawit, I read the two links. Pearl is definitely distancing himself from the situation, but a little more than is strictly honest, in my view. By saying only that a copy of TTUAC was found in the home, he seems to be implying a ridiculous leap of logic to connect him in any way to the parents’ child-training methods. (I myself own a copy of the Book of Mormon and the Communist Manifesto, and a few other books I don’t agree with–and in the case of these two, have actually never read. It would be silly to bypass the presence of thousands of other books and focus on these two. But it wouldn’t be silly to think that a book with notes in my handwriting, heavily underlined, recommending principles that others agree I follow, might have some influence on my actions. Not saying they’ve heavily underlined the book or anything–I don’t know. But their discipline seems more than peripherally connected to the Pearls, though it wasn’t anything they would endorse.)
I don’t blame the Pearls for the death, but I do think that their principles inevitably lead to such things in some instances, and that their telling parents to continue physical discipline until the child submits is dangerous. It’s not their “fault,” but they do bear some blame. I think the connection is closer than the second link’s example because of this “keep going until he submits” principle. A more complete connection between that and the tomahawk throwing person would be finding out that Pearl didn’t sufficiently instruct the person with the tomahawk about safeguarding other people who might be in the area where you’re throwing. If the Pearls had been very careful to say, “Never continue this discipline after five minutes [or some such limit], because at that point it clearly isn’t working and you may be inclined to escalate it into abuse,” then they’d bear no blame. Leaving it open-ended, and finding that open-ended “discipline” has turned into abuse and death . . . there is at least some blame here, especially when an author claims to speak for God.
Report comment to moderator
To those who are defending the Pearls:
Wouldn’t now be a good time for them to clarify their position on foster/adoptive parents and plumbing supply line?
Wouldn’t it be a good time to clarify what is meant by “use whatever force is necessary to bring him to bay?” What is meant by saying that it’s impossible to say how many “licks” is “too many”? What is meant by “defeat him totally”? Wouldn’t it be a good time to say that there are times when a parent should stay his hand, even if the child has not “surrendered”?
Micheal Pearl’s failure to do this speaks volumes. His weaselish, Clintonesque statement that he does not advocate “corporal punishment” speaks further volumes. And lest any doubt be left about his character, he issues a statement on his blog and Facebook page that he “laughs” at critics, some of whom are experiencing deep grief and loss at the death of a child in their midst.
More than any method or training technique, our children learn from our example. Michael Pearl’s defensive, arrogant, and callous behavior in response to this incident is not one I want my children to emulate.
Report comment to moderator
#240
Once again on this thread, I find myself in complete agreement.
Report comment to moderator
#241
Yes, this is troubling. There is a lot of redefining of other words and phrases, and no limiting or defining of some of those you have mentioned.
And, making fun of critics is not the appropriate response at this time.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you, Mamaduck. Well said. And I think his defenders could be doing some of that as well. “Yes, it bothers me to see him leave discipline so open-ended, and he probably has failed to take into account how an angry man with a rebellious child might misuse such instruction” would go a long way with me. But just “Don’t blame the Pearls at all for this” is too much. Don’t prosecute them, but don’t pretend there isn’t a connection. And do expect unsold editions of their books to be recalled and some editing to be done, some hearty warnings added, some actual thought given to the idea of open-ended discipline. . . .
Report comment to moderator
I’m confused….
Do we know of any incident where Christ ever struck another person? A child? An *infant*? For any reason?
Don’t Christians strive to be as Christ-like as possible?
To be honest, reading a passage on what implements are to be used to strike a baby under 12 months of age makes me feel like throwing up.
Report comment to moderator
That’s where I usually find myself GUENH. I understand why people spank their children, but the degree to which the Pearls teach and practice it makes me very uneasy, sad, and confused.
And I agree wholeheartedly with MamaDuck.
The statement Michael Pearl made this week (not going to elevate it with a link, but you can find it on the NGJ facebook page) served to confirm my suspicions of his arrogance and his belief that the ONLY way to raise children is his way. I certainly wanted to vomit when I read it.
Report comment to moderator
Belleville, IL over 4 days..
http://www.bnd.com/2010/03/04/1159226/girl-severely-beaten-man-charged.html#storylink=omni_popular
Perhaps there are some countries where the guy would be sentenced to “life in prison without provision” with a 4 day visit by “contractors” to administer the abdominal “treatment” for his recollection “education”. After 4 days, “died of natural causes”.
Here in the U.S…probably 3 nice meals daily, warm bed, library, and basketball.
:-O
Report comment to moderator
Kristen S., I just read the statement. Wow. It made me wonder if the man is sane. It also made me think of the statement in Ecclesiastes that there’s a time to mourn and a time to laugh–laughter is not appropriate for him at this time. And ending such a post with a sly wink about spanking his dogs with the same tool used to kill this child . . . it truly makes me question his sanity, or at least his judgment and his mercy. Absolutely sick.
Report comment to moderator
“Sadly, this year a 7 year old died. Her parents have been charged with murder and torture. In the home, there was a copy of To Train Up A Child. In the rush to decry this death, many have been quick to state that murder and torture are promoted and recommended within the text of this book, which is an absurd untruth.”
“Again, the critics have defied rules of logic and leapt to the wrong conclusion. Someone baked a cake without all of the ingredients. Someone is ignoring the instructions. . . . and THAT is a recipe for disaster.”
Taken from;
http://michaeldebipearl.blogspot.com/2010/03/leaping-to-wrong-conclusion.html
Cheryl D. – Mike & Debi Pearl’s writings are full to overflowing with these warnings. Even when they tell you to spank a child until he surrenders there are cautions and limitations included. I’m sure Mike Pearl was not laughing about the tragedy in CA. When I read the hysterical, misinformed, illogical, ignorant “opinions” about him and NGJ, those are sometimes hard not to laugh at. They are just too ridiculous to even take seriously when you know the Pearls and their philosophy.
–R
Report comment to moderator
Rossingol, I’m very, very glad they give those warnings. I still think the advice is dangerous, and I think that a post on laughter in such a situation makes him look mentally ill. Sorry, it just does. He can think his critics wrong, but that was simply wrong, and his snide reference to using one of those instruments on his dog looked a bit too much like laughing at the child’s death. That post didn’t have heavenly laughter in it.
The Bible speaks of a parent not “provoking” the child to anger, and the wrong kind of spanking can do just that. Any parent who thinks a child’s lack of submission can be cured by another spanking (and can’t possibly be the child being provoked to anger by his parent’s injustice) is far too likely to end up abusing their child. I don’t know that I’d say it as a “rule” that if one spanking doesn’t help, you should never ever give a second one–but I would come fairly close to that. At any rate, a child is dead, rightly or wrongly the Pearls have been considered somewhat morally culpable, and a response of laughter is not a holy or sane response.
Report comment to moderator
“Let’s focus in this web post on the alleged Michael Pearl connection. Now, I know Michael Pearl to be a great fan of the old-fashioned sport of tomahawk-tossing. In fact, he’s so good at it, he even gives lessons. Let’s say, just hypothetically, that a 15-year old homeschooler joins Mike Pearl at a Family Camp in Tennessee for a week and takes up an interest in tomahawk throwing. Mike gives the person some good pointers, shows how far away to stand, how to aim carefully at the target, et cetera. The person than returns home with one of the tomahawks Mike recommends, and expertly buries one in a neighbor’s skull from 15 paces out. Somebody then calls 911, and the headlines soon read: AUTHORITIES INVESTIGATING TOMAHAWK MURDERER’S TIES TO TENNESSEE EVANGELIST.”
White Man Michiana
http://whitemail.blogspot.com/2010/03/trouble-in-paradise-one-member-dead-one.html
–R
Report comment to moderator
This is a quote from To Train Up a Child.
“If parents are given to extreme responses, pages 50 and 51 say:
A CAUTION TO RECIPIENTS OF THE MILLSTONE AWARD
There are always some who act in the extreme. These individuals are capable of using what has been said about the legitimate use of the rod to justify ongoing brutality to their children. I can think of several right now. These abusers of their children would not in the least view themselves as such. They would call themselves “strong disciplinarians.” “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea” (Matt. 18:6).”
http://www.squidoo.com/Pearls_2Train_Up_A_Child
-R
Report comment to moderator
MYTOOSENSE- You hit that nail on the head! What a horrifying ordeal for that poor child. Jail is too good for the man who did that!
–R
Report comment to moderator
I have always gone to the Sears family (Doctor dad and sons, mom’s a nurse. They have a website: http://www.askdrsears.com/)
They are a Christian family and have, in addition to their many books, put out one on Christian parenting. They advocate Attachment Parenting, which is the direct opposite of what the Pearls advocate, yet it is in keeping with their Christian faith.
One of the things they talk about is NOT parenting by “baby trainer.” Meaning, that anyone who rights a book, even the Sears themselves, are not the expert of your kid. You are. And no one method is going to work for everyone. Even your family doc or pediatrician is not the expert. They may know what to do when you’re sick, but parenting is not a science, it’s a philosophy, and one size does not fit all. Nor do I believe that the bible is telling me that I HAVE to conquer my child in order to be a good parent and produce happy, well-adjusted children.
Thank you for taking this on. I thinks it’s very important that the criticism comes from other Christians, especially, and I think it’s very brave of you to talk about it. Although my own Christian community is very loving and supportive, I have had experiences with those who believe the “if you’re not with us, you’re not a Christian.” And that is a shame.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D. –”a response of laughter is not a holy or sane response.”
You seem to have a predisposition to take things totally out of context and totally misunderstand what is being said. Now you are going to accuse Mike Pearl of being unholy and insane?!?!?!! He was NOT laughing about a small child being beaten to death. His response to that was that it was a horrible tragedy, and that he does not advocate violence against children.
He is laughing at the wild, ridiculous accusations against him and his ministry. Some of them are SO ridiculous, I don’t know how anybody could not laugh. Even my children are laughing when I read them some of the posts on this thread. They think you all are backwards and uninformed. Mike Pearl is happy because he trained his dogs not to eat his chickens with a plumbing line. I’m happy when my dog doesn’t eat my chickens too. Does that make me insane? Maybe dead chickens would be better? My chickens sure are happy that I trained my dog to leave them alone. They are not very smart, but even they know the value of child training and more importantly (to them) dog training.
Now go ahead and post some kind of message where you say that I think my kids are like dogs or something like that. I’m sure you can come up with something. LOL
Report comment to moderator
FYNCHE -
The Pearls would also agree that most of the time the parent is the expert when it comes to the child. They do not advocate blindly following someone’s mathematical formula. What they do preach is just using your God-given common sense. They have not accused anyone of not being Christian, nor have any of their followers that I am aware of. Every Christian has the right to think for themselves. Some of us will make mistakes sometimes, but other times we will find truths & principles from the Bible that do great works in our daily lives. The Pearls book was an example of this for my and my family. It uncovered Biblical principles that have born sweet fruit for us. Even though we walk through the valley of death we still find sweetness and goodness in life along the way.
Report comment to moderator
Rossingol,
You seem to have a predisposition to take things totally out of context and totally misunderstand what is being said. Nope, I don’t, and I find this remark offensive. What I am doing is putting his post on laughter IN CONTEXT. He is responding to his critics, yes, but I assume that the reason his critics are on him so strongly right now is because of a dead child. Laughing at someone who is grieving the death of a child, and rubbing it in with a taunt about using the same instrument that killed the child on your dog, isn’t a proper response at this time.
It would be comparable to someone who thought those opposed to Terri Schiavo’s death by withholding food and water to be wrong, and ending his post with a statement about sometimes not giving his dog water for an entire day because it’s good for him. Christians simply don’t mock people that way, or we shouldn’t. Imagine the child’s grandmother reading that Facebook post–would she say I was taking it out of context, or would she determine that his callousness showed that he really does have some guilt in this (though she had been trying to give him the benefit of the doubt)?
I don’t question his sanity because he questions his critics; I question his sanity because he laughs at his critics and forgets the brutally significant reason they’re criticizing him. He is rolling with laughter at a funeral. That’s the context. And see post 246 above–I’m not the only one who responded to it this way. The man is probably completely sane, but he either has mental issues or judgment issues, or he’s gotten so completely sidetracked by his critics that he somehow forgot that a dead child is the issue here, and that laughter at a funeral is out of place.
Report comment to moderator
Rossignol –
Please read this account by someone who knew Lydia’s family.
http://lauriemo.blogspot.com/2010/02/in-which-i-speak-of-unspeakable.html
Please believe that the primary motivation of many of the Pearl’s critics is not to attack or demean *you* or others who have found value in the Pearl’s materials but to prevent the death and suffering of children like Lydia. Please understand that people are struggling to understand how this could have happened in a family that seemed so loving and stable. Reading over the Pearls’ materials abundantly available online we see a lot that is questionable and open to misinterpretation. There are some warnings, true, but they seem to little, too late, especially for struggling parents who read Michael Pearl’s statement that “the rod is magic” and his warnings that the chastisement must continue until the child is “totally surrendered.
I repeat again, now would be a good time for Pearl to clarify some of these issues. If he truly is concerned about the welfare of *all* children, even those whose parents “lack common sense”, now is the time to make it known. Then there would be no need for accusations, defensiveness, and Us vs. Them thinking.
Report comment to moderator
So, as a Pearl-parent beats/whips/switches/hits/spanks (many words, same action) his “child into submission” he is modeling Christ-like behaviour? Is Christ standing by smiling in love and satisfaction as he watches a little child be beaten by its parent as the child cries out for mercy?
How can Pearl call himself a Christian? How can Christians buy into this? Where in the bible does it say Christians should beat their children into submission and break their spirits? It sounds like Pearl has taken a few sentences from the bible and extrapolated on them like mad.
And finally, anyone who writes:
“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.”
does not deserve me to take him the least bit seriously.
Now, I would invite Pearl to write Dr. and Martha Sears and point out where the Sears went wrong in raising their nine wonderful, well-adjusted and happy children. And I can’t help but wonder how many Pearl-parented children grow up to despise the religion they were raised in and reject it. I’m betting that Pearl would very likely blame the parent of any child that did so, saying that the parent didn’t follow the Pearl teachings properly.
Report comment to moderator
Perhaps the Pearls have lawyers who have told them not to say anything that might be construed as admitting some guilt. But I think their best response would be humility and empathy. Something like, “We recently heard about the death of a little girl at the hands of her parents, and we felt shock and grief for her death. Some have used this opportunity to attack any and all physical discipline of children, including our child-training methods. We do not condone child abuse, period. But we are truly saddened by the death of this young child, and we are praying for her family. Please join us in praying for the parents and for the children who are now in foster care, and probably scared and confused by all that has happened these last few weeks.”
A post like that would shut up critics a lot faster than one pretending that their materials have no possible connection to this death or laughing at critics (and indirectly seeming to be laughing at a child’s death). Also, taking a second look at their materials would be in order for them, to be sure they have dealt with such things with enough care. Taking down the post about wife abuse would be one thing they could do, and rewording anything that seems to counsel open-ended “switching” of children.
The responses he has chosen simply lack wisdom and humility, and mercy . . . at best. At worst, they show that he himself lacks these traits, and maybe isn’t quite in touch with reality. I’m sure he feels attacked, but this is the time for humility and gentleness, not for stupid, heartless responses.
Report comment to moderator
“A post like that would shut up critics…”
I don’t think this is necessarily true.
Report comment to moderator
MAMADUCK – I have read that article and, while the author did know that family, they do not know everything. I find that they, like everyone else have a lot of false presuppositions and assumptions about the Pearls. She obviously has a poor understanding of their philosophy and their methods.
The Pearls have spent the last 15 years trying to clarify the principles they teach. They have written numerous articles clearly intended to prevent any abuses. However there are some critics who just aren’t listening. All they want is to attack and villify the Pearls. That’s where the us vs. them mentality comes from.
Cheryl D. – So how long does the funeral last? When are we allowed to laugh again? I understand that people are distraught over the death of this child. My heart aches for this family and what they must be going through. I’m sure the Pearls are also distraught. I’m not going to sit around and mope all day though. Life is short. I’m going to spend my time enjoying my kids. I’m not going to let the nightly news ruin my day, no matter how bad it is. I know a young mother who had to be institutionalized because of the way she agonized over orphaned children in Rwanda, terrorists blowing up innocent school children etc….I’m sure the Pearls are already busy writing, and that their dismay and compassion will be expressed more fully in their next article. I know there will be plenty if ink spilled reminding all of us to take care in the discipline and training of our children.
I think his piece about laughter is more about dispelling the myth that his methods produce abuse and misery. His books were actually written to prevent this kind of “discipline”.
A couple of your comments “rubbing it in with a taunt” and this one– “his snide reference to using one of those instruments on his dog” indicate to me that you are not catching the tone of his writing. I have never heard Mike be snide, and he was obviously not trying to rub anything in or to be taunting in the least. He does sometimes use mild satire to get his points across. He is simply trying to demonstrate that those plumbing lines are really quite innocuous, innocent things, just like rulers, spoons, or shoes. There’s really not that much of a difference. Anything can become a weapon in the wrong hands, even a teddy bear.
I have to go now. Quite frankly I’m wondering if trying to post here isn’t just a waste of my time. I really don’t think some of you are really listening. You have all made up your minds already and just can’t hear anything that disagrees with your preconceived ideas on child training. In your minds you blame the Pearls and would render a guilty verdict without listening to the evidence of many thousands of families who have raised happy, enthusiastic children with the Pearls books.
Report comment to moderator
Hopesprings, you didn’t include quite enough of my statement: “A post like this would shut up critics a lot faster . . .” It might not shut up all critics, but what he did post wouldn’t shut up any.
Rossingol, I personally never watch the news and don’t get the newspaper. I don’t think “the news” is all that important to life. So I agree with you that we don’t go around mourning all the time because of sad news. But if “the news” has a personal connection to me, then I naturally will treat it differently. If the 1,000 people killed in an earthquake includes someone I know, then it’s more than just news. I’m not expecting the Pearls to sit around grieving this child’s death; I am “expecting” them to treat it with gravity. This didn’t do so; this struck a lot of us (including me) as being in poor taste.
But you’re right, we aren’t going to change each other’s minds. I’m glad that their methods worked for you. I’m sorry for their theology and the advice they give that is extreme (and some of it is extreme, even if it’s only a small portion–their advice to the abused wife, for instance, and their open-ended discipline). I’m glad for what they say that is good, and I hope they take more seriously the fact that thousands are watching them, and figure out what needs to be toned down, and I hope that this incident doesn’t do anything to make society more “down” on godly, careful spanking.
Report comment to moderator
Rossignol, it’s not about whether or not *you* were able to glean some good from the Pearl’s teachings, but whether it is helpful or harmful to those parents who *most* need good advice. No book on childrearing which insists that discipline methods should be hidden from *fellow Christians and church members* is going to be helpful for the families who are most vulnerable.
Report comment to moderator
And I meant to respond to this: “In your minds you blame the Pearls and would render a guilty verdict without listening to the evidence of many thousands of families who have raised happy, enthusiastic children with the Pearls books.”
If you mean “render a guilty verdict” as in holding them legally responsible, no, I wouldn’t. But if you mean metaphorically, the “thousands of families” is merely anecdotal evidence, and none of us is saying they don’t exist. We’re saying that the unhappy families also exist . . . and you are saying that the Pearls bear no blame for them, only credit for the ones with good results. Teachers are held to higher standards, biblically. If their method works well for 75% of the families that use it, wonderful–I rejoice in that. But I’d guess that their method doesn’t work for another 15 or 20% and is downright dangerous, at least potentially, for another 5 to 10%. Since the Pearls say a wife isn’t even to tell her pastor if her husband is abusing her, we’ll simply never know how much abuse is hidden away, never leading to serious injury and thus never seeing the light of day.
And again, we aren’t basing our disagreement just on this case. We’re also basing it on the Pearls’ own words. Do you agree that their advice to the woman whose husband is emotionally abusive, habitually adulterous, and financially unsupportive is not at all helpful, and that the postscript to mothers whose husbands have molested the children is also potentially unhelpful? This shows too much casualness toward actual abuse, in my mind, whatever cautions they give against abuse in other places. I’m glad if they didn’t abuse their own kids, and if most of their followers do not. But as a person who has worked with abused kids, I don’t see their precautions as enough, and as Mamaduck points out, some of their advice actually helps get rid of some of the obstacles to abuse.
So, for potentially abusive parents, we have (1) no accountability and (2) no limits on the number of swats. That’s gasoline to a fire for some parents, especially when you add “God commands this.”
Report comment to moderator
So, for potentially abusive parents, we have (1) no accountability and (2) no limits on the number of swats. That’s gasoline to a fire for some parents, especially when you add “God commands this.”
******Exactly.
And, again, I ask: If you have two philosophies of child-rearing, and both seem to work well, why would you pick the one that encourages switching, breaking the will, and “training” a baby?
In other words, we have lots of evidence that there are many less extreme philosophies that work just as well or better. So, why pick the one that involves hurting the child?
Report comment to moderator
Or, maybe I should have said, “regularly hurting the child” as I am not against an OCCASIONAL spanking.
Report comment to moderator
“You have all made up your minds already and just can’t hear anything that disagrees with your preconceived ideas on child training.”
Whereas, Michael Pearl’s assessment that his critics’ children will be low-achieving welfare recipients is based on his thoroughly unbiased investigation into our methods of child discipline.
The positive aspects of the Pearls’ message can be found elsewhere, without the toxic “leaven” of behaviorism and secretiveness.
Report comment to moderator
Sometimes abnormal ducking and wincing before your boss, can be traced back to the teen years.
Moms, known to fire loaves of bread across kitchen tables, as well as flailing belts, at laughing mouth-traps of the (slid-under-the-twin-bed) aforementioned youngsters, are at times, unsuccessful.
Clues concerning these lifetime, psycho-injuries show up when you peacefully think you’ll relax with a good ‘ole peanut butter and jelly sandwich, soon finding yourself abnormally ducking behind the milk carton.
Or perhaps observing a cowboy-rope scene in a theatre and finding yourself squirming and pressing yourself back in the seat, with rapidly blinking eyes.
These are the kinds of things that can be greatly overlooked by our social science departments.
But a keen boss can pick up on it and give you extra work.
If fact, he may kind of enjoy it.
Report comment to moderator
Parents are totally responsible for what they read and how they apply it in their daily lives.
The Pearls most likely have a few good ideas, but pipes blows their role as any sort of role models – pipes aren’t to be used on children or anyone else – unless it was in self defense. I wouldn’t bother reading a book written with such malice towards children.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t think you understand the definition of innocuous but here it is:
innocuous definition
1. Having no adverse effect; harmless.
2. Not likely to offend or provoke to strong emotion; insipid.
HARMLESS?
“Plumbing lines” are cruel treatment when used to strike a child. When parents hit their children with “plumbing lines” do you think they should be struck by “plumbing lines” when they are mean spirited, unfair, etc., and if not, why not?
Just pick up a “plumbing line” and then pick up a ruler, there is a vast difference that should be easily observed by anyone, there is no comparison – and by the way, there is nothing innocent in using a “plumbing line” -
Report comment to moderator
“The Pearls most likely have a few good ideas, but pipes blows their role as any sort of role models – pipes aren’t to be used on children or anyone else – unless it was in self defense.”
Pipes?
Report comment to moderator
Hopesprings
“quarter-inch plumbing supply line” is in the above post by Megan Dunham – Plumbing line belongs where it needs to be used in construction, it wasn’t made for a childs back side.
I am not advocating the use of plumbing supply line OR pipes on children. I would think that plumbing supply line and actual pipes are not the same thing, though. Using Megan’s word “plumbing supply line” is accurate. I don’t think the use of the word “pipes” is completely accurate.
Report comment to moderator
hopesprings – if anyone in Southern CA was found to be using such a thing as “plumbing supply line” to whip their child, they would be arrested, the children would be taken out of the home to a safe place. In fact almost anyone where I live would call the police immediately –
When people can equate, such as “rossignol – 262
“He is simply trying to demonstrate that those plumbing lines are really quite innocuous, innocent things, just like rulers, spoons, or shoes. There’s really not that much of a difference.”
Then why not use a spoon? – but instead they use “plumbing supply line” ? – NO, that is wrong – it is extreme – further more I don’t believe any parent is so calm as to pick up such a thing and whip a child, that is scary -
Christian Believers need to make a stand against children being punished wrongly -
Report comment to moderator
Regardless, using the word “pipe” as a replacement for “plumbing supply line” is an inaccurate account.
Report comment to moderator
Hopesprings
I just finished speaking with the hardware store where my husband shops – The man made it clear, that “plumbing supply line” is made from TWO materials, 1- stainless steal – 2- vinyl, both of which are a type of pipe -
Report comment to moderator
SHOULD READ – - stainless steel
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Nevertheless, it would be probably be good to do the research BEFORE employing a word that could be considered to be a misrepresentation.
Report comment to moderator
#27, this might also apply to the word “straw”.
Report comment to moderator
Hopesprings –
I did the research – it’s a type of pipe either stainless steel or vinyl -
Report comment to moderator
Agreed that the research was done AFTER using the word.
Report comment to moderator
Oh that’s a real comparison – I wonder how many children have been harmed with these “plumbing lines” while their parents sit back and wait for their children scream in terror?
Report comment to moderator
I did the research, knowing that a “plumbing lines” was a hollow piece – if you think about it, it would have to be hollow to allow liquid to pass through it, therefore it is a type of pipe. Just plain logic.
Report comment to moderator
“Obviously a line which water can be transmitted would be a type of pipe, it’s hollow inside –”
This was the definition offered. A straw is also a line “which water can be transmitted”.
Report comment to moderator
Logic would also dictate that the correct term was used.
Report comment to moderator
OH, that should read
“That is a straw man argument, LOL”
You are entitled to have that opinion.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!