A Rising Anti-Pearl Movement within the Conservative Christian Community

Jay — a child has been *killed*… why in the world would you immediately “go to” a place of assuming libel and slander and assume that someone is *lying* about knowing the family?

I’ve never heard of these nuts before and I don’t really want to delve into all of their material before I make a judgment about them :p . From the Salon article, it seems as if their followers have learned to expect 100% compliance out of children all the time from toddlerhood up. My wife and I approach discipline as an 18-year process. I don’t expect total and complete obedience out of a 3 year old. I surely don’t discipline my children for everything-it would weary them and me. I have a 3,4,10 and 13 year old. We try to address heart attitudes and sinful patterns we see developing. While the Bible surely commands parents to chasten their children, a child’s most important need is to be converted. It would be a shame to have a child who gets to 18 and shrinks everytime mom or dad reaches for the piece of pipe and yet is lost. How can you successfully evangelize a child who has learned little of God’s grace from his or her mother or father? How can a child learn that forgiveness is having your sins wiped away without having to bear the punishment if he or she has seen little of that in his or her own experience? Discipline takes in far more than negative consequences for misbehavior; experiencing grace, forgiveness and love is part of discipine as well.

I read Hebrews 12:10 recently which reads, “For our fathers disciplined us for a few years, doing the best they knew how?” (NLT) “The best they knew how.” There are too many variables in raising a child. Every child is different, every circumstance is different. How can a single extrabiblical book serve as a “one size fits all” remedy for how a child is to be disciplined? I’m far more satisfied with trying to live out the Bible in my home, and with trying to do the best I can. By God’s grace, I pray to someday have 4 goldy young adults.

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

I would agree that if someone rejects original sin and embraces some kind of Palagianism, the idea of “training” could (but wouldn’t necessarily) lend itself to excess. You could start to think that you are actually transforming the child’s essential nature and his standing with God. That’s alot of burden to put on a parent and I’m glad to not have to carry that! On the other hand, there is a bit of an overreaction in some quarters that emphasize the child’s “heart” so much, parenting becomes much more mysterious and complicated than it needs to be as well. It’s hard enough if we just stick with Scripture.

Proverbs emphasizes character and the practical benefits of good habits—and how parental training instills those habits. But of course you can have all the good habits in the world and—as Romans shows (esp. ch.2)—still stand before God condemned. There must be an imputation of Christ’s righteousness in place of the guilt of Adam imputed to us in the womb… along with the imputation of His righteous life in place of all the sins we personally commit. Nothing less than substitution will do, and that substitution has nothing at all to do with child training.

But when a child is born again, then you’re not just character-building as a parent—you’re disciple-making. So all those heart issues become important on top of developing good habits. It’s both-and, not either-or. Some of the books seem to reject the building of good habits entirely.
(And also overlook the fact that everything we do affects our “hearts,” even if we don’t understand or believe in it at the time)

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.

[Anne Sokol] http://www.khsltv.com/content/localnews/story/DA-Deadly-Child-Abuse-Cas…

http://www.paradisepost.com/ci_14378467?source=rss_viewed
Quote is from the first link
Ramsey [The District Attorney] is quick to point out that followers of No Greater Joy [red] do not advocate spanking to the point of serious injury.

“Even the Tennessee pastor that espouse hitting children right from infancy says that you must watch that you don’t cross the line. Clearly this is a situation where the line was crossed from discipline… to beating… to murder,” said Ramsey.
So why is this about the Pearls?

I think these two parents were actually carrying out the Pearls’ system.

Of COURSE Michael Pearl doesn’t (openly) advocate spanking to the point of injury—he’d probably go to jail then. But his teaching do in fact teach this, if you know what I mean. Read his stuff. It’s full of cross-talk.
[article] CHICO (CBS) ― Prosecutors say parents used quarter inch plastic tubing to beat their seven-year-old adopted daughter to death, CBS station KOVR-TV reports. Apparently, they got the idea from a fundamentalist based Christian group, which promotes using this as a way of training children to be obedient.

Three years ago, Kevin Schatz and his wife Elizabeth decided to adopt three children from Liberia. Now, they are accused of killing one of them, allegedly because one child mispronounced a word.

Butte County District Attorney Mike Ramsey says the seven-year-old was held down for several hours by Elizabeth and beaten dozens of times by Kevin on the back of her body, causing massive tissue damage.

“It was torture,” says Ramsey.

Another 11-year-old adopted child was critically beaten for “being a liar and a bad influence on the seven-year-old.”

The District Attorney points to a book written by a Tennessee Evangelist named Michael Pearl, who the Schatz’s have told police they were following.

Pearl’s Web site, www.nogreaterjoy.org, suggests “A swift whack with the plastic tubing would sting but not bruise. Give ten licks at a time, more if the child resists.”

“This is not a good ole’ fashion spanking, it certainly is way beyond that,” says Ramsey.

The alleged beating happened on a piece of property in Paradise, where the three adopted children and the Schatz’s six biological children were homeschooled.

The family rarely left their property. Their six biological children were home schooled. They even grew their own food.

Kevin and Elizabeth Schatz now face life in prison.

The Schatz’s nine children thought these alleged beatings were normal, and they can’t understand why police have arrested their parents.

http://kdka.com/national/Parents.Accused.Of.2.1507239.html
[Anne Sokol] I think these two parents were actually carrying out the Pearls’ system.
Hey Anne, I probably should know something about the Pearls as someone has already pointed out they have been discussed previously on Sharper Iron

Not to defend the Pearls, but the parents were NOT actually carrying out the Pearl’s system.

In your own quote above: “A swift whack with the plastic tubing would sting [red] but not bruise”. If the Pearls advocated “stinging not bruising” then the couple were NOT in fact following the Pearl’s advice.

I said I was not defending the Pearls. More comments on that here:
  • I think spanking an infant is just pure wrong!
  • I think the plastic tubing idea is likewise nefarious

in the very next sentence, MP says “Give ten licks at a time, more if the child resists.”

MP was not saying not to bruise a child, he was saying that doing this shouldn’t leave a bruise (in the discoverable sense).

MP: “…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.”
From To Train Up a Child, by Michael and Debi Pearl
Chapter 6: Applying the Rod

“Otherwise, tell him to bend over on the bed or couch; and while he is in this position give some choice admonition. You have his undivided attention. Slowly begin to spank… . I found five to ten licks usually sufficient. Sometimes, with older children, usually when the licks are not forceful enough, the child may still be rebellious… . A general rule is to continue the disciplinary action until the child is surrendered.

“Any spanking, to effectively reinforce instruction, must cause pain… For the under one year old, a little, ten- to twelve-inch long, willowy branch (striped of any knots that might break the skin) about one-eighth inch diameter is sufficient… . A one-foot ruler, or its equivalent in a paddle, is a sufficient alternative. For the larger child, a belt or larger tree branch is effective.”

From To Train Up a Child, by Michael and Debi Pearl
Chapter 6: Applying the Rod

[Rachel L.] Jay — a child has been *killed*… why in the world would you immediately “go to” a place of assuming libel and slander and assume that someone is *lying* about knowing the family?
Rachel,

All I know is that a child died. That’s it. I’m not saying anyone is lying or assuming slander on a person’s behalf or anything else. I don’t know anyone involved, I don’t know the kids’ family, and I certainly don’t know who this person is that’s saying the kid was murdered. All I’m saying is that we ought to be careful before weighing in.

"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’m going to leave this alone after this post
  • There seems to be phenomena in the US (and perhaps in other countries) where so-called specialists rise up and have a following
  • I saw this with Bill Gothard. People would go off to a Gothard conference and seemingly afterward buy every book, hang on every word, and follow every idea no matter how crazy it was
  • The Lord wants us to be followers of Him and not followers of men!
  • Every lesson taught should be tested with the plumb line of the Scriptures.
  • It is obvious to me that corporal punishment is not wrong (done correctly!) Proverbs 13:24
  • Many Scriptural teachings can be taken to the extreme. Samples
    • Obey the Pastor (Hebrews 13:17). In everything? How much authority does he have in my home, my finances, etc?
    • Submission in the home (wife to husband). Taken to the extreme you have a brutal dictatorship!
    • Discipline of children: In the sad case of Lydia and Zariah Schatz discipline went well beyond Scriptural discipline! It became Homicide!

I advise parents to read the Book of Ephesians. Ephesians 6:1-4 sets the pattern.

Back briefly to my own upbringing (in the home of parents who did not know the Lord!)
  • There was corporal punishment! Sometimes with a belt!
  • My parents were wise enough to understand that the belt was the ultimate extreme reserved for rebellious behavior
  • I know I was not spanked as an infant!
  • My folks used the old rewards and withholding of rewards system most times!

Of COURSE Michael Pearl doesn’t (openly) advocate spanking to the point of injury…
So he secretly advocates spanking to the point of injury? How did this family find out and carry out the hidden Pearl agenda?
But his teaching do in fact teach this, if you know what I mean.

No, I don’t know what you mean. I’ve read their stuff for years, and have never seen anything that read “I know I’m saying in this book not to abuse your children, but if you turn the book upside down and read it backwards, you will see the secret message and immediately commence to beating your kids to death.”

I’m not opposed to you at all!

My beef is this: This man (and others, like Gothard) play on parents’ fears concerning their kids, and end up promoting harmfulbizzareungodly parenting as Biblical. It’s amazing what Christian parents conscientiously do to their children in the name of God. Parents are taught to behave this way.

People need to start talking about this. Like, my friend on FB posted a status about dealing with her 2yo. A woman posts a comment about how she carries pingpong paddles everywhere with her to strike or threaten her children with. There is one in her purse, in the car, in each room of the house.

Just take a moment to think about this.

What adult, much less a child, whom you are discipling would you treat/train/motivate in that way?

It’s absolutely phenomenal what we have come to accept as normal childrearing.

[Susan R]
Of COURSE Michael Pearl doesn’t (openly) advocate spanking to the point of injury…
So he secretly advocates spanking to the point of injury? How did this family find out and carry out the hidden Pearl agenda?
But his teaching do in fact teach this, if you know what I mean.

No, I don’t know what you mean. I’ve read their stuff for years, and have never seen anything that read “I know I’m saying in this book not to abuse your children, but if you turn the book upside down and read it backwards, you will see the secret message and immediately commence to beating your kids to death.”
Susan …

The man “says” not to abuse your child. Then he says to strike repeatedly, he says to use tubing, he says to “huggie” your child so s/he can’t scream, he says … .

you see? he says literally “do not abuse” then teaches discipline in a way that is abusive.

Striking repeatedly in a controlled manner with reasonable force does not result in serious bodily harm. Not allowing kids to scream is not abuse. Using tubing is not abuse, as it inflicts pain without causing damage.

Again- the Pearls clarify all their child training advice with the use of words such as “reasonable”, “limited”, “calm”, and “controlled”- those ideas are clearly the anti-thesis of abuse. Implying that the Pearls are responsible for the abuse and murder of children is bearing false witness.

[Susan R] Striking repeatedly in a controlled manner with reasonable force does not result in serious bodily harm. Not allowing kids to scream is not abuse. Using tubing is not abuse, as it inflicts pain without causing damage.

Again- the Pearls clarify all their child training advice with the use of words such as “reasonable”, “limited”, “calm”, and “controlled”- those ideas are clearly the anti-thesis of abuse. Implying that the Pearls are responsible for the abuse and murder of children is bearing false witness.

is this not what the Schatz parents were doing?