Are Michael and Debi Pearl “Guilty as Charged?� by Rebekah Anast

[scrappyhappymama]

I can't believe I am about to do this. I am really a very non-confrontational person, so my heart is pounding just thinking about posting this. But, I feel compelled to share a little of the "other side of the story" when it comes to the Pearls. I'm going to out myself a bit in the process here, so I hope not too many folks feel they have to block me.

 

It makes my heart hurt to read the most recent thread about the Pearls. First and foremost, because of what happened to that poor little child. It is a tragedy and makes me sick that someone could do that to their own child!!

 

But I also am saddened by all the vitriol directed toward the Pearls and toward conservative Christians in general, especially by folks who openly declare they have never read anything they've written and never will. As homeschoolers, and as people who value making reasoned and knowledgeable judgments, I find this to be disheartening. Many people have expressed revulsion and disgust toward what the Pearls teach (or supposedly teach) based on what they've "heard" it says, based on the reactions of other people, or based on the actions of horrible parents who abuse their children to the point of death, which is never in any way advocated by the Pearl's teaching.

 

I'll give one example of the misconstruing that often happens when the Pearls are brought up. Folks claim that they advocate "beating" or "spanking" infants. That's not the picture I get from the Pearls at all. What they advocate is training the little one that the word "No" means something they'd rather not do. So for example, if my baby grabs my hair and tugs, I thump them on the hand while saying "no." At most, they look startled, but after a time or two, they move on to something else (usually a toy I've offered instead) and don't tug my hair anymore. In addition, I spend a lot more time teaching them "gentle" by rubbing their palms against my hair or my arm. You may think I am evil for thumping my baby (and you are within your rights to feel this way), but I submit that this is not at all the same thing as "beating an infant."

 

The benefit my babies and I enjoy of early training of the word "No" or "No Touch" is that it gives them boundaries that they can build upon as they get older and explore more and more. I'd much rather calmly tell my 18 month old a "No" that he understands than to feel frustrated with a curious toddler and perhaps even resort to hollering. I'd much rather give occasional spats than to yell constantly at my children.

 

The Pearls also advocate "Tying Strings of Fellowship" with our children. In fact, this is the primary focus of their teaching, and often overlooked or unknown by those who only know the Pearls by rumor. They go so far as to say that any spanking a parent may choose to do is completely ineffective outside a close and loving family relationship. That if parents aren't willing to put in the time to build strings of affection between themselves and their children, then they would be better off not spanking at all. Here's a quote from Michael Pearl, discussing parenting Foster Children, where corporal training is not an option: Can you see that in such simple, day to day matters hangs all of child training. Until we tie strings of fellowship all else is vain, even harmful. If you would train your children and you are prevented from using the rod, you still have at your disposal a tool that most of my readers have never effectively employed—continuous fellowship with their child. If you can create an atmosphere of trust and good will, you will greatly reduce the need to spank the small child, and nearly eliminate the need in children 8 or older.

 

Sadly, people can twist anything they choose to substantiate their abuse. I will admit that the Pearls have a manner of speaking that does not appeal to all (outside of the real objections I know folks have to them). They do remind me a lot of older southern folks I know (and my own grandfather) who speak in a way that makes me wince sometimes, but I know they mean no harm. I disagree with the Pearls on some points of doctrine myself, and would not employ all the ideas they offer in my own family dynamic. Just like a lot of other books, we "eat the fish, and spit out the bones." But holding the Pearls to account for someone taking a small part of their teaching and twisting it beyond all common sense is unfair, in my opinion. It would be like a demented parent beating their child and using the following verse to justify it: Do not withhold correction from a child, for if you beat him with a rod, he will not die. Proverbs 23:13 Anyone can take that verse overly literally and either justify heinous actions or blame God for their disgusting actions. But many of us do not discount the entire Bible based on such a verse, nor do we hold God accountable when someone uses it to justify hateful actions.

 

So, after saying more than I intended myself, here's the essay by Michael & Debi Pearl's daughter:

 

My name is Rebekah Anast. I am the firstborn daughter of Michael and Debi Pearl, the authors of the best-selling book To Train Up a Child.

 

In every society there are “movers and shakers,” those people who call the media, make the stories (or the stink, as the case may be) and bring about changes that effect the thousands of ambivalent and, often clueless, masses. Some of these movers and shakers have the good of the masses in mind, others are simply angry, irrational people that need attention and like to make a scene. Unfortunately, the media thrives on these sensation-makers, and is quick to poison the waters of truth if the poison is offered on the silver platter of a “hot story.”

 

How do we combat the irrational and unfounded sensationalism that would poison the waters of our communities? With truth. If the media wants a story, give them the truth. Let them know that we are very aware of the lies and sensation being spread — but that we’re not afraid of it, because we know the truth.

 

These sensational story-tellers say that Michael and Debi Pearl teach child abuse, the subjection of women, and general injustice.

 

I would know (I am their daughter) whether their techniques are violent and unjust, or loving and temperate. I would know if the result is an emotionally damaged and fearful child, or a creative, successful, happy adult. I would know, yes, better than any one of these angry people, whether Michael and Debi Pearl are barbaric child abusers, or loving, successful parents.

 

Every type of abuse leaves evidence to prove its occurrence, whether it be a mark on the spirit or the body. Let me give you the evidence that is me:

 

I am 32 years old, married and the mother of three children. I am the happiest person I know, and my life is full of fruit; my own three very happy, balanced children who are completely sound in body and mind.

 

I have written articles, books, screenplays, and traveled the world for 4 years, meeting new people, eating new food, ministering to those in need, and loving life. I always returned to my favorite place and my favorite people... my family.

 

I married a wonderful man who is worth every moment of reverence and honor I give him; he is my best friend and only lover.

 

I have very few bad memories of childhood, all of which I can recall clearly; my dog dying, my hand getting cut on a fresh pine board, my brother being stung by bees, and my father’s grief over a friend’s suffering. That’s all that I can recall.

 

I remember only one spanking. I remember it because I laughed all the way through it, and so did my Dad. I had played a prank that was dangerous, but funny, and fully deserved a spanking for it, but my parents were unable to spank me without laughing. That is the only spanking I clearly remember. The others were so well-deserved my conscience was able to write off the memory once the deed was paid for.

 

I was never injured in body or spirit by the training I received. I was never “struck” in anger. I did receive non-injurous spankings on my fully clothed backside with a willow switch when I had clearly transgressed a known “law” of the house. These spankings did not leave bruises or abrasions, or emotional distress.

 

I learned by the gentlest way possible that foolishness has consequences and wise choices make life comfortable. This training has literally saved my life and I am eternally grateful to both my parents for using a literal rod to train my flesh to make wise choices.

 

My brothers and sisters were my best friends growing up. We did everything together; swimming, playing, working. We usually got in trouble together too, and when spankings were due, they were due all around. However, trouble was hard to find, as either Mom or Dad was almost always with us, joining in the fun, the projects, and the learning. From dancing in the rain, to building forts, to learning to ride a bike; they were there, so much a part of my life.

 

A person is innocent until proven guilty. I have proof that Michael and Debi Pearl are wise and loving parents: I am the proof, and every one of my siblings would agree with me.

 

Almost everything we (my parents) have ever written is available online for FREE on nogreaterjoy.org; and everything else is as inexpensive as possible while still allowing No Greater Joy to operate as a non-profit organization, geared toward helping thousands of parents and children.

 

A lot of information about the Pearl’s on the internet is simply taken out of context or completely misquoted. Look up the quotes on nogreaterjoy.org for yourself and make sure your source isn’t lying or misconstruing the truth. It’s important to the homeschool movement that we be accountable for our views, instead of blindly following the loudest sensationalist, or giving them credibility of any kind.

Edited August 19, 2011 by scrappyhappymama

[NanceXToo]

Two words.

 

Stockholm Syndrome.

 

Just my opinion. I have nothing against conservative Christians. Nothing. But the Pearls... positively sickening (and I did read their book condoning child abuse beginning in infancy, where they told their readers what size switch to use on a baby. Ugh!).

[calandalsmom]

Two words.

 

Stockholm Syndrome.

 

Just my opinion. I have nothing against conservative Christians. Nothing. But the Pearls... positively sickening (and I did read their book condoning child abuse beginning in infancy, where they told their readers what size switch to use on a baby. Ugh!).

 

yeah. Basic indoctrination.

[Renee in NC]

Never mind. I know better than to get in discussions like this - they go nowhere except to nastiness.

[Tenaj]

I can't believe I am about to do this. I am really a very non-confrontational person, so my heart is pounding just thinking about posting this. But, I feel compelled to share a little of the "other side of the story" when it comes to the Pearls. I'm going to out myself a bit in the process here, so I hope not too many folks feel they have to block me.

 

 

:iagree:

 

I didn't want to put everything in the quote box so I just copied the first box but I agreed with everything you said but was too timid to state it in the other thread.

 

I've heard the Pearls speak in person and the one thing they said that resonated with me is that the most important thing is the "tying of the strings" of the relationship.

 

Thank you for being brave enough to post and to so eloquently express what I've been thinking all day.

[ktgrok]

I HAVE read their writings. I felt i should to know of what I speak. And they DO advise beating babies. They advise hitting a 6 month old BABY with a stick. The infraction? Trying to crawl off a blanket. Or worse, trying to sit up when laid in their crib. These are BABIES being hit with sticks. There is NO WAY anyone will ever convince me Jesus wants me to hit a baby with a stick.

[Farrar]

It’s important to the homeschool movement that we be accountable for our views, instead of blindly following the loudest sensationalist, or giving them credibility of any kind.[/b]

 

Well, I agree with that.

 

Which is why it's important for people, especially homeschoolers and especially Christians, to speak out against the things the Pearls have written. I have no clue if they were good parents or exercised their ideas in moderation. But the things they've written - not out of context, random quotes, but the totality of their words - have encouraged people to commit serious violence against their children.

[Heather in Neverland]

I also HAVE read TTUAC and their "Helpmeet" book and somehow ended up with their NGJ magazines coming to my house until I moved. I know people who follow their methods and I have had long discussions and my opinion remains the same.

 

Rubbish. Dangerous Rubbish.

 

HITTING AN INFANT IS ABUSE. An infant? A little baby who can't even crawl or speak? There is no way around it. IT IS ABUSE. An infant does not pull your hair because he is NAUGHTY. He pulls your hair because he is an infant and they have reflexes and one of them is reaching for and grabbing things. Study child development for goodness sake.

 

We could probably have long discussions over spanking an older child BUT THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR PHYSICALLY HARMING AN INFANT. PERIOD.

 

If you cannot handle the ups and downs of parenting an INFANT without resorting to physically harming that infant then DO NOT HAVE CHILDREN.

 

And I don't care if anyone agrees with me. There is nothing you can say to change my mind. I will go kicking and screaming to my grave with this same belief.

[Audrey]

Two words.

 

Stockholm Syndrome.

 

 

 

 

:iagree:

 

 

Scraphappy... you can defend them all you like. You are entitled to your opinion. You will never convince me, though. The Pearls have made their statements again and again in their books, on their website, in the interviews they give. They are vile. It is evident in everything they say and in everything they coach others to do.

 

I have read more than one of their books and have read their website. I base my opinion of them entirely upon their writings and their words.

 

IMO, they are evil walking.

[Parrothead]

I didn't read your whole post. I'm sorry for not doing so. I'm kind of stuck on the baby hands. I'm not condemning your choice of parenting styles. I'd never do that as I know what that condemnation is like since I get it often myself.

 

But I would ask that you think about the possible long term consequences to your baby's hands. I speak to you as a person who has had minor damage lead to debilitating arthritis. All because of playing "thump" with my brother when we were children.

 

Please think about the possibilities of what could happen long term by what you think may be an innocent discipline method. Those bones are still forming and are so delicate.

[Ottakee]

I personally have found a few gems of wisdoms from the Pearls but have thrown out a lot as well.

 

I have seen this as well with a well known adoption speaker where people say she is terrible and cruel, etc. BUT they miss the biggest part of her message which is similar to the "tieing strings" of the Pearls.

 

I don't agree though with "switching" infants, etc. and feel that a mild pop on the hand of an older infant/toddler is a vastly different thing than a "switching".

[emcap]

I've read some of the Pearl's materials too, and come to the same conclusion. The main point I got was - consistency, love, and the point of the switch is because hands are not for hitting, also that (gasp) spanking is not the solution for every problem. That actually makes a lot of sense to me. It makes me sad when a child flinches away from their parent's hand even when not in trouble. I think knowing that hands are not for hitting is very helpful. The book also recommends swatting yourself first so that you realize your strength and don't harm your child.

I don't follow the Pearls, but believe they do have some good advice. I am not conservative Christian either, but don't think they're abusers. So much is exaggerated and taken out of context it makes me sad.

 

Sad side story - I was in a store with my children when we saw another mom. Her little guy, about 2, was really acting up and wouldn't come when she called so she looked at him and said, "alright then, I'm leaving" and walked around the corner. The little guy looked so frightened and started having crying. She did not come back. He continued crying. I do not butt in EVER, I really mind my own business, but this time I was on my way to tell that little guy that his mama would never leave him and lead him to her. Fortunately she came back. Now that, to me, is cruel. It would have been much kinder to calmly say to him, "You must obey when i tell you to come." and gently swat his little thigh. Not hard, not in anger, just to let him know you mean it. It's a matter of safety.

 

What those parents did was horrifying, but the Pearl bashing is unfair. Unfortunately I think his preaching often attracts a certain type of person, ready and eager to run wild claiming it's done in the name of God.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I can't believe I am about to do this. I am really a very non-confrontational person, so my heart is pounding just thinking about posting this. But, I feel compelled to share a little of the "other side of the story" when it comes to the Pearls. I'm going to out myself a bit in the process here, so I hope not too many folks feel they have to block me.

 

It makes my heart hurt to read the most recent thread about the Pearls. First and foremost, because of what happened to that poor little child. It is a tragedy and makes me sick that someone could do that to their own child!!

 

But I also am saddened by all the vitriol directed toward the Pearls and toward conservative Christians in general, especially by folks who openly declare they have never read anything they've written and never will. As homeschoolers, and as people who value making reasoned and knowledgeable judgments, I find this to be disheartening. Many people have expressed revulsion and disgust toward what the Pearls teach (or supposedly teach) based on what they've "heard" it says, based on the reactions of other people, or based on the actions of horrible parents who abuse their children to the point of death, which is never in any way advocated by the Pearl's teaching.

 

I'll give one example of the misconstruing that often happens when the Pearls are brought up. Folks claim that they advocate "beating" or "spanking" infants. That's not the picture I get from the Pearls at all. What they advocate is training the little one that the word "No" means something they'd rather not do. So for example, if my baby grabs my hair and tugs, I thump them on the hand while saying "no." At most, they look startled, but after a time or two, they move on to something else (usually a toy I've offered instead) and don't tug my hair anymore. In addition, I spend a lot more time teaching them "gentle" by rubbing their palms against my hair or my arm. You may think I am evil for thumping my baby (and you are within your rights to feel this way), but I submit that this is not at all the same thing as "beating an infant."

 

The benefit my babies and I enjoy of early training of the word "No" or "No Touch" is that it gives them boundaries that they can build upon as they get older and explore more and more. I'd much rather calmly tell my 18 month old a "No" that he understands than to feel frustrated with a curious toddler and perhaps even resort to hollering. I'd much rather give occasional spats than to yell constantly at my children.

 

The Pearls also advocate "Tying Strings of Fellowship" with our children. In fact, this is the primary focus of their teaching, and often overlooked or unknown by those who only know the Pearls by rumor. They go so far as to say that any spanking a parent may choose to do is completely ineffective outside a close and loving family relationship. That if parents aren't willing to put in the time to build strings of affection between themselves and their children, then they would be better off not spanking at all. Here's a quote from Michael Pearl, discussing parenting Foster Children, where corporal training is not an option: Can you see that in such simple, day to day matters hangs all of child training. Until we tie strings of fellowship all else is vain, even harmful. If you would train your children and you are prevented from using the rod, you still have at your disposal a tool that most of my readers have never effectively employed—continuous fellowship with their child. If you can create an atmosphere of trust and good will, you will greatly reduce the need to spank the small child, and nearly eliminate the need in children 8 or older.

 

Sadly, people can twist anything they choose to substantiate their abuse. I will admit that the Pearls have a manner of speaking that does not appeal to all (outside of the real objections I know folks have to them). They do remind me a lot of older southern folks I know (and my own grandfather) who speak in a way that makes me wince sometimes, but I know they mean no harm. I disagree with the Pearls on some points of doctrine myself, and would not employ all the ideas they offer in my own family dynamic. Just like a lot of other books, we "eat the fish, and spit out the bones." But holding the Pearls to account for someone taking a small part of their teaching and twisting it beyond all common sense is unfair, in my opinion. It would be like a demented parent beating their child and using the following verse to justify it: Do not withhold correction from a child, for if you beat him with a rod, he will not die. Proverbs 23:13 Anyone can take that verse overly literally and either justify heinous actions or blame God for their disgusting actions. But many of us do not discount the entire Bible based on such a verse, nor do we hold God accountable when someone uses it to justify hateful actions.

 

 

 

No, they are not good people. Good people do not advocate hitting small children with PVC pipe.

 

A good person doesn't give advice like this:

"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. Stick by him, but testify against him in court. Have him do about 10 to 20 years, and by the time he gets out, you will have raised the kids, and you can be waiting for him with open arms of forgiveness and restitution. Will this glorify God? Forever. You ask, "What if he doesn’t repent even then?" Then you will be rewarded in heaven equal to the martyrs, and God will have something to rub in the Devil’s face. God hates divorce—always, forever, regardless, without exception."

 

I won't say the Pearls are evil, but I will not accept they are "good people".

[Tohru]

Two words.

 

Stockholm Syndrome.

 

Just my opinion. I have nothing against conservative Christians. Nothing. But the Pearls... positively sickening (and I did read their book condoning child abuse beginning in infancy, where they told their readers what size switch to use on a baby. Ugh!).

 

:iagree:

And yes, I did read their book. And then I threw it in the trash because it was against what we believe. Maybe their method works for some, but it would not be acceptable in our family.

 

I don't spank because I don't think that any human should inflict any type of pain onto another, regardless of reason or relationship.

Edited August 19, 2011 by jadedone80

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I HAVE read their writings. I felt i should to know of what I speak. And they DO advise beating babies. They advise hitting a 6 month old BABY with a stick. The infraction? Trying to crawl off a blanket. Or worse, trying to sit up when laid in their crib. These are BABIES being hit with sticks. There is NO WAY anyone will ever convince me Jesus wants me to hit a baby with a stick.

:iagree: X1,000,000

 

When I think of the loving hands of Christ, I can't picture a piece of plastic pipe in them being used to beat a child.

[justamouse]

People who know nothing but abuse take a long time to realize they've been abused. Sometimes they never know what life is like without.

 

Abuse is abuse and sugar coating it doesn't make it right.

[WishboneDawn]

But I also am saddened by all the vitriol directed toward the Pearls and toward conservative Christians in general, especially by folks who openly declare they have never read anything they've written and never will.

 

To be fair, many who've been critical of them have been conservatives AND have said they read the book.

[Mommy22alyns]

Two words.

 

Stockholm Syndrome.

 

Just my opinion. I have nothing against conservative Christians. Nothing. But the Pearls... positively sickening (and I did read their book condoning child abuse beginning in infancy, where they told their readers what size switch to use on a baby. Ugh!).

 

 

:iagree:

[Tenaj]

I also HAVE read TTUAC and their "Helpmeet" book and somehow ended up with their NGJ magazines coming to my house until I moved. I know people who follow their methods and I have had long discussions and my opinion remains the same.

 

Rubbish. Dangerous Rubbish.

 

HITTING AN INFANT IS ABUSE. An infant? A little baby who can't even crawl or speak? There is no way around it. IT IS ABUSE. An infant does not pull your hair because he is NAUGHTY. He pulls your hair because he is an infant and they have reflexes and one of them is reaching for and grabbing things. Study child development for goodness sake.

 

We could probably have long discussions over spanking an older child BUT THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR PHYSICALLY HARMING AN INFANT. PERIOD.

 

 

If you cannot handle the ups and downs of parenting an INFANT without resorting to physically harming that infant then DO NOT HAVE CHILDREN.

 

And I don't care if anyone agrees with me. There is nothing you can say to change my mind. I will go kicking and screaming to my grave with this same belief.

 

Did you read what the op was saying she did about the hair pulling? There was no physical harm - there was a surprise. I've done a similar thing when being bitten by a nursing infant (usually my kids get teeth around 6 or 7 months). There's no physcial harm in expressing surprise and doing a gentle finger thump on a little cheek. And yes, I've done similar things for hair pulling, and reaching for a plug when rolling or crawling. Training, training, training.

 

 

It has nothing, nothing, nothing, to do with the ups and downs of parenting. How insulting!

 

No one is trying to change your mind. Obviously, that's not going to happen, but exaggerating and painting these things with a broad brush as something horrible is not accurate.

[Impish]

I'm one of the ppl that admitted to not reading their books, etc, but finding them repugnant.

 

Frankly, there is enough out there about them that I didn't need to waste time or money on their book to know I heartily disagree with them, and find enough of what they advocate to be so stomach turning that there's no way I'd trust them to tell me if it was raining outside, let alone dispense parenting or marital advice.

 

That being said.

 

I'm not going to say their dd has Stockholm Syndrome or anything like that. Frankly, when discusing my childhood, I want ppl to accept what I say is true when I say it was abusive, not dismiss me. So, I cannot, in good conscience, dismiss someone else who claims theirs was not. Its not my place to do so.

[Runningmom80]

Let me get this straight, you hit babies? I hope I read that wrong.

[Sputterduck]

The things I read myself from the Pearls include using a switch on their 4 month old. That is in their book To Train Up a Child. Did you even read that? It seems you didn't from your post. Also, their encouragement to wives to stay with men who have sexually abused their children. They were quoted on that in the other thread.

 

Can you explain to me, please, why these things are okay?

[justamouse]

Did you read what the op was saying she did about the hair pulling? There was no physical harm - there was a surprise. I've done a similar thing when being bitten by a nursing infant (usually my kids get teeth around 6 or 7 months). There's no physcial harm in expressing surprise and doing a gentle finger thump on a little cheek. And yes, I've done similar things for hair pulling, and reaching for a plug when rolling or crawling. Training, training, training.

 

 

It has nothing, nothing, nothing, to do with the ups and downs of parenting. How insulting!

 

No one is trying to change your mind. Obviously, that's not going to happen, but exaggerating and painting these things with a broad brush as something horrible is not accurate.

 

It doesn't seem like they advocate thumping or a hair tweak. Seems like they advocate more than that.

 

Diminishing the reality of what they espouse doesn't make it better.

[Runningmom80]

Did you read what the op was saying she did about the hair pulling? There was no physical harm - there was a surprise. I've done a similar thing when being bitten by a nursing infant (usually my kids get teeth around 6 or 7 months). There's no physcial harm in expressing surprise and doing a gentle finger thump on a little cheek. And yes, I've done similar things for hair pulling, and reaching for a plug when rolling or crawling. Training, training, training.

 

 

It has nothing, nothing, nothing, to do with the ups and downs of parenting. How insulting!

 

No one is trying to change your mind. Obviously, that's not going to happen, but exaggerating and painting these things with a broad brush as something horrible is not accurate.

 

 

What is a "finger thump?"

[Lang Syne Boardie]

No. To say that the critics have never read it and are simply against conservative Christians is the argument of a decade ago. It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now. There are too many of us conservative Christians speaking out, and this argument cannot stand.

 

Conservative Christians themselves have read the books, watched the DVDs, gone to the seminars, and whipped their own babies until the Holy Spirit snatched the rod from their hand and they came to their senses.

 

Conservative Christians have been snubbed, shunned, and tossed out of yon conservative churches where the Pearls' way has been the godly way.

 

Extended families divided. Churches split. Husbands and wives at odds with each other. Children neglected and beaten. Children murdered.

 

Those evils are the fruit of this ministry. Truth! I am speaking the truth! Sean Paddock and Lydia Schatz lie dead, and the true character of the Pearls is revealed in the news video. It bears witness to their writings and teachings over many years.

 

"If the child has breath to cry, 'huggie!' you are not hitting him hard enough. Obey the Lord." That was the tone of their teaching if not the exact words.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Tibbie Dunbar

[Veritaserum]

It is possible to "train your child" to accept limits, boundaries, and that no means no without physically hurting him/her.

[ktgrok]

Did you read what the op was saying she did about the hair pulling? There was no physical harm - there was a surprise. I've done a similar thing when being bitten by a nursing infant (usually my kids get teeth around 6 or 7 months). There's no physcial harm in expressing surprise and doing a gentle finger thump on a little cheek. And yes, I've done similar things for hair pulling, and reaching for a plug when rolling or crawling. Training, training, training.

 

 

It has nothing, nothing, nothing, to do with the ups and downs of parenting. How insulting!

 

No one is trying to change your mind. Obviously, that's not going to happen, but exaggerating and painting these things with a broad brush as something horrible is not accurate.

 

I agree that a tap on the hand of a child that is hurting someone is different than switching a baby. However, the OP set up a logical fallacy by saying the Pearls are not abusive because her hand thumping is not abusive. The Pearls do not advocate hand thumping. They advocate switching infancs with sticks/rods/pipe.

 

One has little or nothing to do with the other.

 

Boundaries and training are good. They have nothing to do with hand thumping, or switching, either. My parents were very strict, and raised very well behaved, polite, caring children that did well in life, and didn't ever hit us in any way. If it CAN be done without hitting babies with sticks, then it SHOULD be done without hitting babies with sticks. And the Pearls teach evil. With just enough good mixed it to make it palatable for the masses.

[SweetBean]

The things I read myself from the Pearls include using a switch on their 4 month old. That is in their book To Train Up a Child. Did you even read that? It seems you didn't from your post. Also, their encouragement to wives to stay with men who have sexually abused their children. They were quoted on that in the other thread.

 

Can you explain to me, please, why these things are okay?

I have a 4 mos. old, and I just can't imagine doing this. A 4 mos. old is as sweet as they come. What on earth could a baby so young do to deserve discipline of any kind? I don't get it at all. I also think it is insane to thump a child's cheek or pull their hair when they are nursing. Place your finger in you mouth and take them off the breast. Say, "no bite", and try it again. If they bite again, again tell them, "no bite", and be done with the feeding.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Look at this list of very conservative Christian men, all known in Christian and homeschooling circles, who have spoken out against the Pearls' dangerous, divisive, and heretical teaching:

 

Rob Shearer, publisher of homeschooling materials, father of 11 and director of The Francis Schaeffer Study Center has spoken up right here.

Wade Burleson, Baptist pastor in Oklahoma, has spoken out right here.

Matt, a pastor/blogger who knows the family (?) or who knows families who know the family: Is Michael Pearl Responsible for a Girl’s Death?

Aaron, a blogger who knows the family: “Pearl Still Claims Innocence for Himself and His Followersâ€

Aaron also has several other posts on the issue and was one of the earliest to speak out: Corporal Punishment and Two Kingdoms (talks about the case, his personal connection to the family, and makes some theological observations from his Reformed theology perspective.) “The Devil Who Made Them Do It†(his post when the Pearl connection was uncovered.) “Local DA Provides More Details to the Big City Reporters†and a couple others.

Randy Greenwald, pastor of Hope Presbyterian in Bradenton FL, hits one out of the park with: Hermeneutics, Life and Death

Dr. Giles Fraser, canon chancellor at St. Paul’s Cathedral, England: Suffer Little Children (a commentary published by The Guardian in 2006)

Glenn Chatfield: To Train Up a Child, Follow Up

Benediction Blogs On: Michael and Debi Pearls teaching linked to another child abuse death

Mark Hegener, Home Education Magazine: Bring Back the Boycott

Phillip Winn, Boar’s Head Tavern Group Blog: Abuse vs. Discipline

Rey Reynoso, Theologica: To Train Up a Child: An Examination

[kalanamak]

 

But I also am saddened by all the vitriol directed toward the Pearls and toward conservative Christians in general

 

I know I didn't hang on every post, but I missed the part about vitriol against conservative Christians. I read posts from people identifying themselves as conservative Christians and not accepting the Pearl's methods. Fred Phelps is rubbished, but over and over it is noted that few believe he, or the Pearls, are any kind of accepted model of conservative Christianity.

 

I have read his web page. I have heard him state and write that people who aren't spanked grow up to be bad and/or unhappy people. It is patently false, but he says this with an inborn authority that some people take and run with it. If my advice was killing people, I'd think about rewording it.

 

The few conservative Christian homeschoolers I know in the flesh (2 whole families) CRINGE at the mention of the Pearls, and dread being painted with any brush that his been in the same county as him.

 

I'm happy his daughter is happy. Some children need little direction to "mind", as my mother said. But if you say to repeat if the child is not "broken" until the child is, where is the limit for the child (and the two cases I know about involve adopted children who don't share the biological sensibilities of the parents) who resists with her immature mind in an emotional fashion until there is enough muscle breakdown to kill them? Am I using dramatic words. They are true words. I could couch it in "unfortunate and unforeseeable compounding of contusions leading to fatal rhabdomyolysis" but there are times not to speak dispassionately.

 

Given such stiff-necked pride, one wonders how often Mr. Pearl was physically punished at a young age, setting those neuronal paths to "can't differ from the status quo or the world will end", to harden his opinion of himself to a steel surface.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Robin Sampson of Heart of Wisdom, who is so extremely conservative that I never have been quite able to use her materials (and I consider myself to be conservative) wrote an excellent blog post here.

 

At the end she has a long list of others who have spoken out, including the owners of Timberdoodle. They also are very conservative.

 

This is not about believer vs. unbeliever, conservative vs. liberal, or spanking vs. non-spanking. I won't let those paradigms be resurrected, because they are false.

[NanceXToo]

The things I read myself from the Pearls include using a switch on their 4 month old. That is in their book To Train Up a Child. Did you even read that? It seems you didn't from your post. Also, their encouragement to wives to stay with men who have sexually abused their children. They were quoted on that in the other thread.

 

Can you explain to me, please, why these things are okay?

 

I'm curious too if you've actually read it (the OP I mean). They said, and this is a direct quote from their book:

 

"For the under one year old, a small, ten- to twelve-inch long, willowy branch (striped of any knots that might break the skin), about one-eighth of an inch in diameter is sufficient. Sometimes alternatives have to be sought. 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."

 

That alone makes me want to vomit.

 

On the subject of a baby who bites while nursing, Michael Pearl said: "My wife did not waste time finding a cure. When the baby bit, she pulled hair (an alternative has to be sought for bald-headed babies)."

 

Other excerpts from the book: "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 has 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."

 

and "A proper spanking leaves children without breath to complain."

 

These people are horrifying. There is no excuse for them. None.

Edited August 19, 2011 by NanceXToo
clarification.

[Runningmom80]

I'm curious too if you've actually read it. They said, and this is a direct quote from their book:

 

"For the under one year old, a small, ten- to twelve-inch long, willowy branch (striped of any knots that might break the skin), about one-eighth of an inch in diameter is sufficient. Sometimes alternatives have to be sought. 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."

 

That alone makes me want to vomit.

 

On the subject of a baby who bites while nursing, Michael Pearl said: "My wife did not waste time finding a cure. When the baby bit, she pulled hair (an alternative has to be sought for bald-headed babies)."

 

Other excerpts from the book: "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 has 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."

 

and "A proper spanking leaves children without breath to complain."

 

These people are horrifying. There is no excuse for them. None.

 

 

In what state would these things not be considered child abuse? They are sickening.

 

I can't believe anyone would defend this type of parenting. :confused:

[ChocolateReignRemix]

and "A proper spanking leaves children without breath to complain."

 

Advice like this is why I do see the Pearls as directly culpable in some of these abuse cases.

[Imprimis]

THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR PHYSICALLY HARMING AN INFANT. PERIOD.

 

If you cannot handle the ups and downs of parenting an INFANT without resorting to physically harming that infant then DO NOT HAVE CHILDREN.

 

And I don't care if anyone agrees with me. There is nothing you can say to change my mind. I will go kicking and screaming to my grave with this same belief.

 

Not only do I agree, I will go a step further and say I don't agree with the idea of "training" infants. All an infant needs is love.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Imprimis

[ChocolateReignRemix]

In what state would these things not be considered child abuse? They are sickening.

 

I can't believe anyone would defend this type of parenting. :confused:

 

The Pearls have done an excellent job of convincing their followers that they are being attacked by "nonbelievers" and that the criticism is proof of their Godliness.

Of course that isn't even remotely true, but those that follow this type of parenting advice are generally not the brightest bulbs in the chandelier.

[HRAAB]

I also HAVE read TTUAC and their "Helpmeet" book and somehow ended up with their NGJ magazines coming to my house until I moved. I know people who follow their methods and I have had long discussions and my opinion remains the same.

 

Rubbish. Dangerous Rubbish.

 

HITTING AN INFANT IS ABUSE. An infant? A little baby who can't even crawl or speak? There is no way around it. IT IS ABUSE. An infant does not pull your hair because he is NAUGHTY. He pulls your hair because he is an infant and they have reflexes and one of them is reaching for and grabbing things. Study child development for goodness sake.

 

We could probably have long discussions over spanking an older child BUT THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR PHYSICALLY HARMING AN INFANT. PERIOD.

 

If you cannot handle the ups and downs of parenting an INFANT without resorting to physically harming that infant then DO NOT HAVE CHILDREN.

 

And I don't care if anyone agrees with me. There is nothing you can say to change my mind. I will go kicking and screaming to my grave with this same belief.

 

I have read their books, and I:iagree:

[ma23peas]

To the original poster...I understand your position, you have adopted some of their techniques and found them not to be harmful. And, I did pick up on a slant against conservative Christians, I and a few others posted about the 'labelling' being broad...

 

But, as a Christian, I can not condone thumping a baby, I think it is outrageous. I train horses...they are 1200 pound animals with their own minds sometime, but you can stop them with a look- if they trust you! Instead of starting with a thump, why not start with just a look and a hard 'no' if needed...I did use spanking....with 3 children during their first 6 years, I probably used spanking less than 20 times total..that type of punishment is to be reserved for when all else fails or for instantaneous response...to condone any type of physical punishment or negative reinforcement....15-20 other steps could have been taken. My kids are polite, would do anything for me or their Dad, or anyone else for that matter- I raised them on love..we discipline out of love and physical punishment was used judiciously..

 

I hate to take it back to the horses, but you have horse trainers who would not ride without a bit...they over use it, have a calloused sense of 'feel' and harm the horse more than 'train' the horse. I train a horse with just a halter, ride with NOTHING in their mouth, b/c I have taken the time to communicate clearly and consistently with them...we have soft gentle cues that start on the ground and carry over to the seat...once we have mastered those communication skills, then we use the bit for finesse...for my highly skilled techniques...hard to explain, but we put in the time with these animals to gain their trust...the techniques the Pearls put forth are more of a dominance...you are the Alpha and these are techniques to reinforce that....I am a mother, I love my children through touch feel, using spanking rarely but with a purpose..and never past the age of 6..they have reached a point of reasoning where other techniques are better...

[Pamela H in Texas]

JFWIW, as I mentioned to a poster privately when asked.

 

I HAVE read the book (it is available online).

I even agreed with many of the concepts though not the method.

I have blanket trained a child and boundary trained MANY children. I did so pretty rapidly; no hitting.

 

I believe hitting to train children is problematic in several ways.

I believe the Pearls have stated themselves in ways that are dangerous.

 

I believe, by definition, hitting in any manner is abusive. I do not believe it is all child abuse (a legal term which spanking does not usually fall under). However, I do believe the manner outlined by the Pearls, especially for infants, is most certainly abusive, often crossing over into child abuse (btw, in some states, it is not up for interpretation; if you follow the Pearls' "advice," you ARE breaking the law).

 

I believe hitting babies to be abhorrent. I look at this sweet 6month old and just cannot imagine. Simply beyond what I can possibly comprehend. She's so incredibly sweet and wonderful and just plain not hit-able!

Edited August 19, 2011 by 2J5M9K

[AngelBee]

I can't believe I am about to do this. I am really a very non-confrontational person, so my heart is pounding just thinking about posting this. But, I feel compelled to share a little of the "other side of the story" when it comes to the Pearls. I'm going to out myself a bit in the process here, so I hope not too many folks feel they have to block me.

 

It makes my heart hurt to read the most recent thread about the Pearls. First and foremost, because of what happened to that poor little child. It is a tragedy and makes me sick that someone could do that to their own child!!

 

But I also am saddened by all the vitriol directed toward the Pearls and toward conservative Christians in general, especially by folks who openly declare they have never read anything they've written and never will. As homeschoolers, and as people who value making reasoned and knowledgeable judgments, I find this to be disheartening. Many people have expressed revulsion and disgust toward what the Pearls teach (or supposedly teach) based on what they've "heard" it says, based on the reactions of other people, or based on the actions of horrible parents who abuse their children to the point of death, which is never in any way advocated by the Pearl's teaching.

 

I'll give one example of the misconstruing that often happens when the Pearls are brought up. Folks claim that they advocate "beating" or "spanking" infants. That's not the picture I get from the Pearls at all. What they advocate is training the little one that the word "No" means something they'd rather not do. So for example, if my baby grabs my hair and tugs, I thump them on the hand while saying "no." At most, they look startled, but after a time or two, they move on to something else (usually a toy I've offered instead) and don't tug my hair anymore. In addition, I spend a lot more time teaching them "gentle" by rubbing their palms against my hair or my arm. You may think I am evil for thumping my baby (and you are within your rights to feel this way), but I submit that this is not at all the same thing as "beating an infant."

 

The benefit my babies and I enjoy of early training of the word "No" or "No Touch" is that it gives them boundaries that they can build upon as they get older and explore more and more. I'd much rather calmly tell my 18 month old a "No" that he understands than to feel frustrated with a curious toddler and perhaps even resort to hollering. I'd much rather give occasional spats than to yell constantly at my children.

 

The Pearls also advocate "Tying Strings of Fellowship" with our children. In fact, this is the primary focus of their teaching, and often overlooked or unknown by those who only know the Pearls by rumor. They go so far as to say that any spanking a parent may choose to do is completely ineffective outside a close and loving family relationship. That if parents aren't willing to put in the time to build strings of affection between themselves and their children, then they would be better off not spanking at all. Here's a quote from Michael Pearl, discussing parenting Foster Children, where corporal training is not an option: Can you see that in such simple, day to day matters hangs all of child training. Until we tie strings of fellowship all else is vain, even harmful. If you would train your children and you are prevented from using the rod, you still have at your disposal a tool that most of my readers have never effectively employed—continuous fellowship with their child. If you can create an atmosphere of trust and good will, you will greatly reduce the need to spank the small child, and nearly eliminate the need in children 8 or older.

 

Sadly, people can twist anything they choose to substantiate their abuse. I will admit that the Pearls have a manner of speaking that does not appeal to all (outside of the real objections I know folks have to them). They do remind me a lot of older southern folks I know (and my own grandfather) who speak in a way that makes me wince sometimes, but I know they mean no harm. I disagree with the Pearls on some points of doctrine myself, and would not employ all the ideas they offer in my own family dynamic. Just like a lot of other books, we "eat the fish, and spit out the bones." But holding the Pearls to account for someone taking a small part of their teaching and twisting it beyond all common sense is unfair, in my opinion. It would be like a demented parent beating their child and using the following verse to justify it: Do not withhold correction from a child, for if you beat him with a rod, he will not die. Proverbs 23:13 Anyone can take that verse overly literally and either justify heinous actions or blame God for their disgusting actions. But many of us do not discount the entire Bible based on such a verse, nor do we hold God accountable when someone uses it to justify hateful actions.

[/b]

 

:grouphug: Thank you for posting. I agree with much of what you said.

[RanchGirl]

I am conservative. I've read their writings on the website, but not the book. It makes me sad and angry that anyone would advise or defend whipping children with pumping lines. They may have also said something nice about building relationships with your children. But it doesn't matter to me, because i simply can't, and won't, look past the advocacy of what is clearly child abuse. It has lead to several deaths in different family. Thats the fruit of this tree that we know of. If several children have died at the hands of Pearl students, how many more are growing up alive but emotionally and spiritually dead? I also can't get past their cavalier attitude after the death of the Schatz child, the advice to take a convicted child molester back into your home... The more i read on their website, the more horrors I find. How can any of these behaviors be good for any child?

 

As Christians, we are called to protect children. That is where our outrage should be directed, not defending evil. It is all the more reprehensible that he does these things claiming that it is the Godly way to raise children.

 

It is very concerning to me that so many Christians don't see the evil in Pearl and his methods. I am honestly confused as to how people want to follow or defend this man. I see such an arrogance, and absolutely no humility or love for the people that God has entrusted to him as a leader/teacher. That is just wrong. Compare this man's behavior, writing, and demeanor to that of John Piper.

 

Of course the parents beating their children are fully responsible for their actions. But clearly if these parents hadn't read the Pearl books, their children would still be alive. There is something wrong here. Something evil. We as conservative Christians have to rise up and speak out against this.

[AngelBee]

For the record, I do not spank. :) I have read much of the Pearl's writings and walked away with a TOTALLY different vibe than many do.

[Sputterduck]

JFWIW, as I mentioned to a poster privately when asked.

 

I HAVE read the book (it is available online).

I even agreed with many of the concepts though not the method.

I have blanket trained a child and boundary trained MANY children. I did so pretty rapidly; no hitting.

 

I believe hitting to train children is problematic in several ways.

I believe the Pearls have stated themselves in ways that are dangerous.

 

I believe, by definition, hitting in any matter is abusive. I do not believe it is all child abuse (a legal term which spanking does not usually fall under). However, I do believe the manner outlined by the Pearls, especially for infants, is most certainly abusive, often crossing over into child abuse (btw, in some states, it is not up for interpretation; if you follow the Pearls' "advice," you ARE breaking the law).

 

I believe hitting babies to be abhorrent. I look at this sweet 6month old and just cannot imagine. Simply beyond what I can possibly comprehend. She's so incredibly sweet and wonderful and just plain not hit-able!

 

I have blanket trained my child, too. I also trained my child early (7 months) to obey the word no. Neither of those involved switching! Training is fine, and wonderful even, to me but they go far too far with the physical correction of very small children.

[Joker]

I learned that a simple, "Owww, that hurts mommy!", worked well for my kids when they were pulling my hair. They eventually stopped and don't pull anyone's hair now. I never had to thump their little hands.

 

I don't get defense for the Pearls. What they teach is not loving nor is it ok.

[AngelBee]

I have blanket trained my child, too. I also trained my child early (7 months) to obey the word no. Neither of those involved switching! Training is fine, and wonderful even, to me but they go far too far with the physical correction of very small children.

 

:iagree: However, I do not hold them responsible for others inability to control themselves and killing their children.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

:iagree: However, I do not hold them responsible for others inability to control themselves and killing their children.

 

Perhaps if they were decent, caring people, the Pearls would realize that their advice is worded in a way that causes some people to take it to extremes.

But they don't. So they aren't.

[Runningmom80]

Perhaps if they were decent, caring people, the Pearls would realize that their advice is worded in a way that causes some people to take it to extremes.

But they don't. So they aren't.

 

 

Excellent point!

[Sputterduck]

:iagree: However, I do not hold them responsible for others inability to control themselves and killing their children.

 

I don't either. I think people use their works as an excuse to abuse their own children. The Pearls do not advocate beating children for hours until they die. They advocate things that shock me, but what the couple in question did? They never told anyone to do that...

[justamouse]

Perhaps if they were decent, caring people, the Pearls would realize that their advice is worded in a way that causes some people to take it to extremes.

But they don't. So they aren't.

:iagree:

 

they also seem proud of it!

[Annie Laurie]

I have never read To Train Up a Child. I checked my library and they don't have it, (which I was actually relieved about, so that less people have access to it), and I won't pay money to buy it.

 

But I have read many of the articles on their website, and that is enough for me to come to a conclusion about their teachings, and they disgust me.

 

How about this article: http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/articles/general-view/archive/1999/august/01/infant-manifesto/'>http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/articles/general-view/archive/1999/august/01/infant-manifesto/ where Michael Pearl supposedly writes from the perspective of an infant, when in reality he is writing from an adult perspective, pretending to be an infant. Babies don't think that way, they are not developmentally able to understand other people as entirely separate from them, with their own needs. I feel saddened for any baby in the care of someone who views them the way Michael Pearl writes and teaches. It sets up a combative atmosphere, from the get-go.

 

I take issue with so much that he says, here is just one example:

 

http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/articles/general-view/archive/1999/august/01/infant-manifesto/

 

I started lying from day one. I am ashamed of it now, but I made my sweet mother think that I was hurting or cold, when all I wanted was to be held close.

 

There is something wrong with a baby wanting to be held just to be held? The baby has to be hurting, hungry, or cold to be held? Babies lie? This just breaks my heart for babies who are raised by people who believe these things.

 

That kind of thinking paves the way for neglect and abuse. I do hold the Pearls responsible for the abuses that have occurred by parents following their teachings, as well as the parents themselves.