A Rising Anti-Pearl Movement within the Conservative Christian Community
[Anne Sokol]No- that is not what the Schatz family was doing.[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?
According to the authorities, forceful and numerous whippings, apparently with plumbing line, may have caused tissue breakdown so massive that Lydia’s vital organs could no longer function. The Schatzes also face torture and abuse charges for significant injuries sustained by Lydia’s also-adopted sister Zariah, 11, who was hospitalized in critical condition, as well as for extensive bruising on a 10-year-old biological son.
[Susan R][Anne Sokol][Susan R] Striking 1) repeatedly in a controlled manner 2) with reasonable force does not result in serious bodily harm. Not allowing kids to scream is not abuse. 3) Using tubing is not abuse, as it inflicts pain without causing damage.No- that is not what the Schatz family was doing.According to the authorities, 2) forceful and 1) numerous whippings, apparently 3) with plumbing line, may have caused tissue breakdown so massive that Lydia’s vital organs could no longer function. The Schatzes also face torture and abuse charges for significant injuries sustained by Lydia’s also-adopted sister Zariah, 11, who was hospitalized in critical condition, as well as for extensive bruising on a 10-year-old biological son.
I think it very possibly is just what the Schatz family was doing.
and using tubing is abusive. doesnt matter if marks will show or not.
we are even having this discussion… .
using tubing to whip a child is abusive or not?
or maybe i can believe it …
using tubing to whip a child is abusive or not?
or maybe i can believe it …
I agree, Anne. Even in my neck of the woods (very Southern and conservative and comfortable with corporal punishment), using plumbing supply line to whip a child would be considered abusive.
So- what instrument would not be abusive? Some people think a stick or rod would be abusive- who sets the standard of what is acceptable/unacceptable? Do we run all our sticks and hoses and belts and spoons past the Southern Conservatives Corporal Punishment Board of Approval? ;) I’ve never used tubing of any kind- the Bible says ‘rod’ and a rod it is. But I understand someone thinking that a soft and flexible hose would be safer than a hard stick.
Again- a parent who is exercising the common sense and self-control the Pearls advocate is not going to cause excessive external damage- not to mention internal damage that leads to death. Nothing in the Pearl canon of child training encourages abuse. NOTHING.
The prosecutor Mike Ramsey has said that the child’s death is not a result of the family following the Pearl’s teachings. If you have evidence to the contrary, you can contact his Child Abuse Response Team at (530) 538-7411.
Again- a parent who is exercising the common sense and self-control the Pearls advocate is not going to cause excessive external damage- not to mention internal damage that leads to death. Nothing in the Pearl canon of child training encourages abuse. NOTHING.
The prosecutor Mike Ramsey has said that the child’s death is not a result of the family following the Pearl’s teachings. If you have evidence to the contrary, you can contact his Child Abuse Response Team at (530) 538-7411.
From another http://sharperiron.org/article/dominion-over-animal-kingdom] Filings here on SI:
If “animals are to be treated mercifully by human beings,” why are children to be treated less so?
How you relate to animals is a revealing indicator of your worldview—even of your character. By virtue of our nearly unlimited powers over animals, how we treat them is no trivial matter. It is a litmus test of mind and soul.
The biblical worldview commends an honorable corrective to these extremes. The Bible teaches that, first, every living thing is created by God to reflect His glory. He is every creature’s source, designer and sovereign authority.Michael Pearl bases his child training methods on Amish Mule Training methods. So, he would apparently train animals through whippings/beatings. Is this an accurate “litmus test of [his] mind and soul”?
Second, as creatures made by God, animals have inherent worth and are to be treated mercifully by human beings.
If “animals are to be treated mercifully by human beings,” why are children to be treated less so?
If you want to have the last word, you may.
Look- I don’t use or support ‘The Pearl Method’ wholesale. There are some similarities between practices the Pearls advocate and the way we conditioned our kids when they were very young, and the kinds of responsibilities we give our children as they get older- but the Pearls were not the source of our choices, and that’s where the similarities end. I don’t think they are doctrinally straight, and I must admit- I really hated “Created to be His Helpmeet”. I don’t recommend their materials to anyone. But I don’t believe that anyone with decency and common sense who has read a significant amount of their literature is going to believe they teach that beating children enough to cause internal damage is acceptable. It is obvious to me that painful chastisement is Biblical- but we balance those verses about ‘beating with the rod’ and ‘stripes for the fool’s back’ with other verses about controlling anger, compassion, not provoking our children, speaking the truth in love, restoration, etc… Lazy people who don’t want to study fall for anything and everything- it’s why there are stickers on the sides of things like toasters that say “Do not use as a flotation device”. So let’s put warning stickers on the fronts of Bibles stating “Do not use this book unless you have more than two brain cells to rub together”.
I agree with the Salon article in as much as there are plenty of conservative Christians who reject NGJ, and believe you me- that’s just dandy as far as I’m concerned. But it goes too far when people try to hold them accountable for the deaths of children by the hands of their irresponsible parents.
I agree with the Salon article in as much as there are plenty of conservative Christians who reject NGJ, and believe you me- that’s just dandy as far as I’m concerned. But it goes too far when people try to hold them accountable for the deaths of children by the hands of their irresponsible parents.
[Anne Sokol] If you want to have the last word, you may.
I don’t need or want to have the last word, but thanks for the offer.
What is wrong with Christians that they need this stuff? Read the Bible, pray for guidance, use commonsense and ignore the child-raising gurus.
What’s wrong with Christians that they need this stuff?Well, what I think happens is that parents get frustrated and afraid. I’ve certainly been there. They don’t want to feel that you are failing in their responsibilities and you don’t want to feel that you have let their children down by not giving them what they need. But it doesn’t seem to be working, so they start looking for help in books, videos, “systems,” etc. Eventually one rings true based on what they’ve experienced and what think think the Bible teaches and they try to use it. There’s really nothing wrong with that in principle. We’re not supposed to be able to live the Christian life in isolation… just “me and my Bible.”
But that can wrong in a lot of ways.
It can go horribly wrong if…
- The parents involved don’t have a comprehensive understanding of Scripture on the subject and get a view that too much depends on them (this is often the case with very popular and often repeated misinterpretations of “Train up a child…. and when he is old he will not depart from it…” and other passages.).
- The parents do not have enough confidence in their own judgment as parents to pick and choose wisely from the advice of others. So they take a system and try to follow it to a “T” (quite possibly in ways the authors never intended)
- The particular system encourages parents to “do x until y happens” and “x” is some kind of use of pain and “y” is a particular submissive, contrite response. The Bible does not teach that any human being has the power to force another human being (regardless of age) to repent or truly submit (heard and mind)!
In any case, kids are different, so doing x may quickly produce a submissive and (apparently) repentant attitude in one child, but some kids are absolutely never going to respond that way to being spanked.
So if a parent is committed to a system like that and determined to spank until they see the prescribed response, they will become abusive in the case of a kid who does not respond to that form of discipline that way. With a kid like that, you could beat them to death before they would behave as the system describes.
As for the Pearls… I wouldn’t know whether their system is inherently abusive or not. There’s a real emotional revulsion to the idea of using tubing or whatever it was to hit a child 10 times or more. I will say that I think it’s extremely unwise to prescribe a number of hits and a method for preventing screaming! But it’s also easy to read an author who appears to be contradictory (saying “don’t injure, that’s wrong” but also saying “hit this many times w/this instrument or until you get this response”) and select the statements that sound worst and use them to characterize the whole. And that might not be the right way to understand them. It might be more charitable (and just more likely) to assume that they do not hate children and intend their readers to injure and kill their kids!
But no matter what flaws may exist in the Pearls’ system, there is no way to pin all the blame on them. There is no absolving the parents here who did what they did (allegedly) and who may or may not have employed the Pearl system in some twisted or extreme or overly literal way.
But I really don’t think it’s likely that there are any corporal punishment advocates who want their readers to harm or kill children!
(Edit: one more note… someone above quoted Pearls to the effect that there should be no visible bruising. Regardless of whether the intent is to stay out of trouble with the law or to prevent injury, “no visible bruising” does set a real limit on what the parent does… it limits possible harm quite a bit. There is absolutely no way to beat a child do death without visible bruising! Surely, nobody’s going to deny that?)
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.
I can’t think of anything to add; your post, IMO, covers all of the important questions/issues raised in this thread. Like you, I did a lot of research as a first-time parent…Clarkson, Ezzo, Pearl, Tripp, Dobson, Priolo, Bradley, Fleming, Fugate, and Scott (and probably others that I can’t think of right now) all had my ear at some point. Looking back, we who have a bit more perspective (notice I didn’t say ‘those of us who are older,’ but that’s probably what it amounts to ;)) can see how trends/authors/systems come and go, and how no one human author/system contains every answer for every child, although many do provide key insights and guiding principles which are quite helpful. Pearl? Like Susan, I found his material helpful insofar as it provided good, common-sense ways to teach obedience to children…the old-school ‘hickory stick’ kind of common sense. It is possible to apply these methods outside Pearl’s errant theology; a discerning reader will know how to ‘eat the meat and spit out the bones.’ I do not recommend his publications to anyone, as I can see how non-discerning believers could be taken in by the false philosophies in his materials. However, errant as his theology may be, he does not advocate the kind of abuse which ended this child’s life. (Stories like that just ‘get me’ deep in the gut; too sad for words!)
Oops…I said I couldn’t think of anything to add, and then added something…actually, just echoing what you said.
Oops…I said I couldn’t think of anything to add, and then added something…actually, just echoing what you said.
[Aaron Blumer] (Edit: one more note… someone above quoted Pearls to the effect that there should be no visible bruising. Regardless of whether the intent is to stay out of trouble with the law or to prevent injury, “no visible bruising” does set a real limit on what the parent does… it limits possible harm quite a bit. There is absolutely no way to beat a child do death without visible bruising! Surely, nobody’s going to deny that?)spoken by a white person?
Anne,
Could you please clarify what you mean by your remark. It seems inappropriate, but perhaps it simply needs more clarification.
Could you please clarify what you mean by your remark. It seems inappropriate, but perhaps it simply needs more clarification.
I think Anne was making the point that it would be much easier to assess the potential for bruising on “white” skin by a “white” person (Lydia Schatz was adopted from Liberia)… that Mr. Pearl using this as a safe guard might not be applicable in all situations.
And, I will add, bruising does not generally become apparent until *later*. So, a parent could whip to the point of bruising, but they wouldn’t know it until the beating was well-finished. What good is that?
And, I will add, bruising does not generally become apparent until *later*. So, a parent could whip to the point of bruising, but they wouldn’t know it until the beating was well-finished. What good is that?
Discussion