A Rising Anti-Pearl Movement within the Conservative Christian Community
Many critics of “biblical chastisement” — notably, those close to the controversy, and even to the Schatz family — might say that Pearl has it backward. They suggest that his teachings, with all the weight of their godly imprimatur, could exacerbate, or even create, the impulse to abuse.
Oscar Mayer would be proud.
He adds: “Not to be crass, but you slap the title ‘Christian’ on something, and all of a sudden it’s the ‘Christian’ thing. Sometimes, in my experience, that’s all it takes for Christians to start following something. There’s not a whole lot of discernment.”
No kidding.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
It is easy to slap “Christian” on something and then see many mindlessly accept it as biblical, but that goes both ways. It’s interesting how often I’ve heard that accusation in reference to something old and time honored in preference for something new and progressive. In this particular case, I have to ask which is more likely, that the old fashioned firm, authoritative discipline was falsely labeled “Christian” or that the newer, tolerant, child-centered approaches labeled “Christian” are falsely labeled?
I’m not talking about Pearl in particular, though, because I have absolutely no knowledge of their work at all. I just know I see a pattern of (mostly young) evangelicals embracing new notions of parenting and rejecting older conventional wisdom (that was at least shaped by centuries of Christian influence, unlike the newer models).
I’m not talking about Pearl in particular, though, because I have absolutely no knowledge of their work at all. I just know I see a pattern of (mostly young) evangelicals embracing new notions of parenting and rejecting older conventional wisdom (that was at least shaped by centuries of Christian influence, unlike the newer models).
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
We get in trouble when we fail to seek God for discernment as we read books. As we seek God for discernment, I have trouble believing He is going to direct us to go to the hardware store to buy pvc pipe to use to discipline our children.
We also get in trouble when we we approach our authors, preachers, teachers, Bible-colleges, and other religious institutions with a cultic type of loyalty. It really is a form of idolatry.
We also get in trouble when we we approach our authors, preachers, teachers, Bible-colleges, and other religious institutions with a cultic type of loyalty. It really is a form of idolatry.
[Pastor Joe Roof] We get in trouble when we fail to seek God for discernment as we read books. As we seek God for discernment, I have trouble believing He is going to direct us to go to the hardware store to buy pvc pipe to use to discipline our children.
No- He tells us to go out back and get a switch from the tree. ;) Better yet, you make the child go get their own. Years ago this was SOP, and today it would be thought of as mental cruelty.
[Anne Sokol] read this post: http://ticklemebrahms.blogspot.com/2010/02/in-which-i-talk-about-terrib…
A lot of this guy’s rant is bunk. You can search the Pearl’s site for all of their posts and articles about the use of the rod. They do not teach anything that would result in someone beating their child to death.
There was an SI thread on the Pearls several years ago: http://20.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=2786&page=1&pp=10&highlight=…
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
[Susan R] No- He tells us to go out back and get a switch from the tree. ;) Better yet, you make the child go get their own. Years ago this was SOP, and today it would be thought of as mental cruelty.
i have a lot to say about this. a rod has nothing to do with a tree switch… .
[Susan R]keep reading susan.[Anne Sokol] read this post: http://ticklemebrahms.blogspot.com/2010/02/in-which-i-talk-about-terrib…
A lot of this guy’s rant is bunk. You can search the Pearl’s site for all of their posts and articles about the use of the rod. They do not teach anything that would result in someone beating their child to death.
[Pearls] How many licks?
There is no number that can be given. It would be better to administer more licks that are less forceful than to administer few licks that hurt severely. It is much more effective to administer chastisement or punishment in a slow thoughtful fashion. 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. After about three licks, leaving him in his position, I would stop and remind him what this is all about. I would continue slowly, still counting, stop again and tell him that I know it hurts and I wish I didn’t have to do it but that it is for his own good. Then I would continue slowly. Pretending to forget the count, I would again stop at about eight and ask him the number. Have him subtract eight from ten, (a little homeschooling) and continue with the final two licks. 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.
[Pearls] *What instrument would I use?
“As a rule, do not use your hand. Hands are for loving and helping. If an adult swings his or her hand fast enough to cause pain to the surface of the skin, there is a danger of damaging bones and joints. The most painful nerves are just under the surface of the skin. A swift swat with a light, flexible instrument will sting without bruising or causing internal damage. Many people are using a section of ¼ inch plumber’s supply line as a spanking instrument. It will fit in your purse or hang around you neck. You can buy them for under $1.00 at Home Depot or any hardware store. They come cheaper by the dozen and can be widely distributed in every room and vehicle. Just the high profile of their accessibility keeps the kids in line.”
[Pearls] And when you do spank, make sure that it is forceful enough to get her undivided attention. If she can scream “huggie” while you are spanking her, you are probably not spanking hard enough.”
[Pearls] They try you, test your limits, and seek emancipation from all authority and rule of law. They are liberal totalitarians seeking a following, not passive peasants groveling to do your will. Children must be broken to the yoke of authority.
[Pearls] The soul of your child needs to be punished. “He feels the need to suffer for his misdeeds. What I am telling you is well understood by the most reprobate of modern psychiatrists and psychologists. They call it a “guilt complex.” Children and adults in this state of mind often do harm to themselves. Their anger is turned inward because they hate the bad person they know themselves to be. Their soul is crying out for justice to be done to the self. They don’t know what is happening, and they will not voluntarily seek punishment, but their soul needs judgment. When your child is in the first throes of this debilitating condition, be kind enough to punish him. Care enough and love enough to pay the emotional sacrifice to give him ten to fifteen licks that will satisfy his need to experience payback.
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.
Anyone can do a cut & paste job to make someone look bad. If you read ALL the material put out by the Pearls about using the rod, you will see that they are not advocating inflicting bodily harm on children. You don’t have to agree with their methods- and I don’t agree with all of them- but they are not responsible for people taking their ideas to extremes any more than Jenny Craig is responsible for those with anorexia or bulemia.
[Susan R] Anyone can do a cut & paste job to make someone look bad. If you read ALL the material put out by the Pearls about using the rod, you will see that they are not advocating inflicting bodily harm on children. You don’t have to agree with their methods- and I don’t agree with all of them- but they are not responsible for people taking their ideas to extremes any more than Jenny Craig is responsible for those with anorexia or bulemia.I don’t agree with this logic, susan. I don’t have time to put it into words now, and someone probably has better than me anyway, but here’s a site that’s much more insightful:
[tulipgirl] I’ve heard several apologists for Michael and Debi Pearl and their parenting teachings. Usually the defense is along the lines of, “but you and any abusive parent is taking the teachings out of context!”
Really? Seriously? In what context is ingraining in parents an attitude of “defeat them totally” okay? In what context is is okay to use an implement to strike a 4 month old? Pull a nursing baby’s hair? Hit a toddler with a toy? Whipping (the term often used by the Pearls) on bare skin; for “every transgression”? Whipping a baby who cannot sleep? Whipping a year old for crying? Whipping a 3 y/o until “totally broken?” Using a “tree branch” to spank? No matter what the “context” this advice is harmful to both parents and children.
Other times, people defend the Pearls stating that the problems must be that a parent “disciplined in anger.” While yes, anger and rage can lead to a lack of self control, what is taught by the Pearls is harmful whether a parent is hot with anger or cold and calculating. This is an excellent reflection on that idea, Spanking in Anger Isn’t the Problem.
http://www.tulipgirl.com/index.php/2010/02/hold-em-down-defeat-totally/
From[URL=http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/articles/general-view/archive/2006/june/21/… NGJ[/URL] -
We have made the point here that children under three (give or take six months or so) cannot profit from corporal punishment, but we have made the point elsewhere that small children do profit from the application of the training rod. How are they different? In both cases, the child is being swatted with an instrument. There is a great deal of difference in both the severity and the number of “licks,” and also in the parents’ expectations and perspective. For that reason, we cannot arbitrarily specify a suitable age and declare that it is fitting to spank a child beginning at that point. Children differ, spankings differ, circumstances differ, and parents differ…Where do you find “whipping a baby who cannot sleep”? Only in Hysteriaville on Hyperbole Street.
First, the parent must be trained to exercise personal discipline, and then he is capable of constraining the child to walk in discipline—sometimes by application of the rod of training…
“When is a child too young to spank?” Based on my definition of “spanking,” I can answer the question. A child is too young to spank when spanking is not profitable to the child. Of course, the same applies to a child of any age.
I’ve never heard of the Pearls or any of this, and not particularly wild about “internet jurisprudence”. Let’s see the autopsy report before we put the family in prison. I have read the first blog that Anne linked to, and if it’s true, then this is absolutely horrific and the parents absolutely should go to jail. But if it’s something like SIDS or heart failure [and I really don’t know - just using examples] , then the blog author is guilty of libel and slander.
My concern is that a lot of people get on the internet and start talking about things when all they have are clues or ideas and no hard facts, and that’s not only unfair to the family who is under investigation, it’s also [really] gossip and slander, which is sin.
My concern is that a lot of people get on the internet and start talking about things when all they have are clues or ideas and no hard facts, and that’s not only unfair to the family who is under investigation, it’s also [really] gossip and slander, which is sin.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
http://lauriemo.blogspot.com/2010/02/in-which-i-speak-of-unspeakable.ht… This lady knew the family. Her blog post is filled with love and grace, and I think an appropriate level of horror.
Jay C — I know you weren’t saying that it *was* SIDS or something, but even without an autopsy it seems quite apparent that the death was due to the beating since the 7yo’s elder sister was also beaten and did not die — she “just” ended up with kidney failure (she was hospitalized for 2 weeks). Beatings can result in organ failure due to tissue breakdown that releases toxins and minerals into the bloodstream.
Susan R — I know that the quote to which you linked from NGJ says that children under three cannot profit from corporal punishment. Michael Pearl appears to, at times, use words in non-standard definitions. He does not generally call switching a baby “corporal punishment,” but calls it “training” instead. If you read your quote with that light in mind, one can see how he can *say* what he’s said but still not *mean* that he doesn’t switch babies. In the http://www.paradisepost.com/ci_14427371?source=rss_viewed] statement Pearl released to the press, he says:
Jay C — I know you weren’t saying that it *was* SIDS or something, but even without an autopsy it seems quite apparent that the death was due to the beating since the 7yo’s elder sister was also beaten and did not die — she “just” ended up with kidney failure (she was hospitalized for 2 weeks). Beatings can result in organ failure due to tissue breakdown that releases toxins and minerals into the bloodstream.
Susan R — I know that the quote to which you linked from NGJ says that children under three cannot profit from corporal punishment. Michael Pearl appears to, at times, use words in non-standard definitions. He does not generally call switching a baby “corporal punishment,” but calls it “training” instead. If you read your quote with that light in mind, one can see how he can *say* what he’s said but still not *mean* that he doesn’t switch babies. In the http://www.paradisepost.com/ci_14427371?source=rss_viewed] statement Pearl released to the press, he says:
We do not teach ‘corporal punishment’ nor ‘hitting’ children. 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.Pearl does not believe in original sin. This doctrinal position is why he emphasizes *training* children like you would an animal. It’s an extremely behavioristic approach that makes complete sense given the fact that he doesn’t believe in original sin.
[Rachel L.] http://lauriemo.blogspot.com/2010/02/in-which-i-speak-of-unspeakable.ht… This lady knew the family.
Does she really? All I see is their own word that they know the accused and that actually was what happened to the kids. Anyone can claim that on the internet. Furthermore, is it REALLY wise to air this out on the internet for anyone to read?
Like I said, I’m not trying to minimize this at all. I just want some kind of objectivity here. I could claim I was Lydia’s uncle and no one would know any better.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
I also believe in ‘training’ children- I potty train them and use ‘behavioristic’ methods to train them not touch things that are dangerous and to respond to the sound of my voice. This is entirely appropriate if a child is not of an age to be reasoned with or understand the implications/consequences of their actions.
Abusive methods are those that cause bodily harm- serious bruising, lacerations, etc… and emotional abuse such as screaming at and insulting children instead of calmly dealing with their behavior. I have seen the Pearls clarify all their child training advice with the use of words such as “reasonable”, “limited”, “calm”, and “controlled”. Whether you like his particular vocabulary, those ideas are clearly the anti-thesis of abuse.
If people don’t agree with the Pearl’s methods, that’s certainly fair- I keep up with their teachings because they are popular with some of my friends (both homeschooling and public/private schooled)- but painting them as enablers or proponents of child abuse is bearing false witness.
Abusive methods are those that cause bodily harm- serious bruising, lacerations, etc… and emotional abuse such as screaming at and insulting children instead of calmly dealing with their behavior. I have seen the Pearls clarify all their child training advice with the use of words such as “reasonable”, “limited”, “calm”, and “controlled”. Whether you like his particular vocabulary, those ideas are clearly the anti-thesis of abuse.
If people don’t agree with the Pearl’s methods, that’s certainly fair- I keep up with their teachings because they are popular with some of my friends (both homeschooling and public/private schooled)- but painting them as enablers or proponents of child abuse is bearing false witness.
Discussion