Can We Talk about the Pearls Here?

[Holly IN]

Holly, speaking for myself, I *did* read their books. I "got the point", too, but the more I read of their materials, the less I was able to see "the point" as a fruitful or viable one. Too much of the material smacked of arrogance. As I shared in another post, this man, I'm sure, has made himself accountable to no one. He is his own self-proclaimed authority. That's dangerous. When a person is like that, it speaks volumes to me, and discounts them as an authority on ANYTHING.

 

Thanks you. I understand. Thank you for giving us your viewpoint on his books. This is the stuff we need in these type of discussions.

 

Blessings=

 

Holly

[cin]

Do they have an emoticon for vomiting? I wouldn't even train an animal like that!

 

[Laurie4b]

The cause of death was tying him up in a blanket so tightly that he suffocated. Do the Pearls advocate that? (It's a question.)

[elizabeth]

 

http://www.theherald-nc.com/160/story/8340.html The other kids survived -sort of...I am aghast that anyone could give credence to this belief system. The worst scars are not the physical ones-PTSD anyone????

[Carol in Cal.]

It is the case that in one of the websites linked during this thread, Pearl himself refers to physical discipline as the enforcer that gives effectiveness to the whole system. My words, summarizing his.

 

For those of you who want to see his actual words, here they are:

 

"You can chasten your children with your words, but as we have already pointed out, words that are not backed up with constraining force are nothing more than empty suggestions—personal opinions to be rejected or obeyed as the child pleases.

 

You will also want to use other forms of discipline when they are effective, like making them work, repeating a chore, or any number of unpleasant consequences. Children can also be disciplined by denying a privilege or pleasure. But this kind of penal discipline will only work when they know you have the power of the rod to enforce your rule. The ultimate child motivator is the rod. That brings us to our subject of how to apply the rod."

 

So, why do we focus on the physical beating issue? Because it seems to be, by Pearl's own account, the foundation or cornerstone on which his entire system rests. For those of us who find that foundation repugnant and unacceptable, the entire system is ruined.

 

Furthermore, and even more importantly to me, he puts this forth as Biblical imperative. I am so offended by that presumption that I can hardly stand to express it politely. How dare he?

 

And what a fool he is, to miss out on so much good with his children this way.

 

And what a dangerous man he is, to entice so many young parents into these paths with their young children.

 

That is all.

[Kelli in TN]

 

This clears up the misstatement that those who haven't actually read the books shouldn't be commenting; thank you. Since the Pearls own words were shared numerous times throughout this discussion, I'm confident the vast majority who have replied have indeed listened to the source. Granted, they may not have listened to much; they may be focusing on the portions with which they most strongly disagree. I hear you in that. And I know that's why you're saying:

 

 

 

I don't think "small comments about using phsyical correction" is an accurate assessment. Beyond that, though, Aubrey and unsinkable offered good insight as to why some people focus almost exclusively on the Pearls advice re adminstering corporal punishment. I'll explain further, since you're wondering.

 

There are indeed instances in which we sift through information, casting aside that with which we disagree while reaping benefit from that which resonates with us. Many of us do just that with a resource such as The Well-Trained Mind, for example. I wouldn't describe myself as a "classical" homeschooler. I don't adhere to many of Susan Wise Bauer's suggestions. Nonetheless, I've gained much valuable insight from her over the years, and I do apply some of her ideas to my schooling. There is nothing she suggests that I consider repulsive and wrong-headed so as to make me disrespect her. On the contrary, I hold her in esteem. For that reason, I can contentedly choose which elements of her program to adopt.

 

The same can not be said of Michael Pearl. By no means do I disagree with his every utterance. Of course I agree that an atmosphere of mutual respect and trust must exist in order for parents to impart anything positive to their children. But the proof is in the pudding. The man's very methodology does not foster such an atmosphere. When the same person who seeks to encourage me in my parenting then provides instruction that I consider evidence of his diabolical nature, I would be foolish to merely overlook the latter.

 

And make no mistake. A grown man who stalks a child fleeing from corporal punishment, laughing at the child's "frail attempts" to escape; a man who advises us to think of ourselves as "high-ranking government officials in charge of negotiations" in such scenarios, such a man is not to be admired. Because a real man knows that government negotiations take place between people on an equal footing. A real man has no need of such role-playing, such power-tripping, such assurance of self that he will win, he will gain surrender...from a mere child!

 

Why do I focus on Michael Pearl's comments (small or otherwise) about using physical correction? Because they reveal him to be a person whose opinion is not worthy of my consideration. It's as simple as that.

 

 

Excuse me, could we have some rep over here with a side order of :iagree: please?

 

I'd rep you for this one if I were not grounded from repping today. Great, great post.

[Kelli in TN]

The cause of death was tying him up in a blanket so tightly that he suffocated. Do the Pearls advocate that? (It's a question.)

 

I don't think so. I think she thought that up all by herself.

 

The bruises on his body were apparently the result of her adherence to Mr. Pearl's fine teaching.

[nmoira]

 

I don't think so. I think she thought that up all by herself.

I don't know about this particular case, but I've heard of people (including children) being wrapped in blankets and having to fight their way out to be "reborn." This occasionally results in death. Otherwise it's method of "physical restraint" you hear about occasionally (i.e. when tragedy happens); the last I remember was an autistic boy in Québec who died after his teacher used this as a disciplinary/restraint method.

[Twinmom]

I don't know about this particular case, but I've heard of people (including children) being wrapped in blankets and having to fight their way out to be "reborn." This occasionally results in death.

 

That misguided treatment is sometimes used in cases of Reactive Attachment Disorder. The basic idea is to start over, from birth, to give the child a chance to "reattach" to the caregiver. Nice in theory (the "starting over" bit), horrible in practice, IMO. I see what they are trying to do, but smothering a child in a blanket just ain't the way to do it! :glare:

[Kelli in TN]

I don't know about this particular case, but I've heard of people (including children) being wrapped in blankets and having to fight their way out to be "reborn." This occasionally results in death. Otherwise it's method of "physical restraint" you hear about occasionally (i.e. when tragedy happens); the last I remember was an autistic boy in Québec who died after his teacher used this as a disciplinary/restraint method.

 

 

Oh, I saw a news report on that several years ago. Isn't it used in cases of attachment disorder in adopted children?

 

Can you even imagine the terror that child is feeling in those moments before he or she loses consciousness?

 

Okay, I am emotionally spent on this thread now. I am going to scoop up some kids and get some hugs and kisses. My heart needs refueling.

[nmoira]

 

Oh, I saw a news report on that several years ago. Isn't it used in cases of attachment disorder in adopted children?

Quite possibly as it's something I recall solely from news stories over the years. It's not something I particularly wish to research.

[Twinmom]

Oh, I saw a news report on that several years ago. Isn't it used in cases of attachment disorder in adopted children?

 

Can you even imagine the terror that child is feeling in those moments before he or she loses consciousness?

 

Okay, I am emotionally spent on this thread now. I am going to scoop up some kids and get some hugs and kisses. My heart needs refueling.

 

Yes, since RAD is most well known in cases of international adoption from orphanages, etc. There are certain other ways it occurs, but I'd venture a guess it is higher in the population of adopted kiddos due to the fact that many were adopted from neglectful/abusive situations. And, no, I can't imagine the suffering of the child in the blanket. That's why I can't support it, no matter what the end result is supposed to be.

 

Yes, dear Kelli, you do need to refuel your heart after all this! Go read Isaiah 1:18 and Psalm 23 after you are done with those hugs and kisses, and remember how much God loves you. He gave His own life to redeem you, and sees you as white as snow no matter what you "think" you've done wrong. I hope you can hold that promise true and have a healed heart tonight!

[ticklbee]

OK, I've been following this thread and just now read the article that OP linked to. Now, I'm not going to say anything about the Pearls because anything I say would be redundant. Everything that can be said has already been said.

 

But did anyone else notice anything else disturbing in that article? Everyone is jumping on the Pearls (not that I'm defending them) but according to this article there were a lot more people who failed this little boy:

 

Social workers had plenty of warning that Sean might be harmed at Paddock's home. Wake County social workers had misgivings about putting him in the crowded house, miles outside the nearest town; a bruised backside after his first visit made them even more nervous.

So, they did nothing

 

The state Division of Social Services might have noticed something was amiss, but its annual audits don't go beyond a technical review of contract obligations.

 

Again, nothing done.

 

Sean left his first visit with the Paddocks with a bruise on his backside, according to Wake County records. He told his foster mother and a day-care teacher that Paddock hit him because he petted the family dog.

Wake County opened an investigation,

but two weeks later, agreed to go forward with the adoption. By mid-March, the Ford children were sent to live with the Paddocks for good.

 

There were red flags that were totally ignored and why? Because: ...over a decade, a social worker from Children's Home Society spotted unsettling risk factors in Paddock's home. But her agency had no incentive to walk away. The state pays the agency for completed adoptions.

 

 

They did nothing because of money...they wanted to be paid for the completed adoption. No care or concern shown for Sean at all. And this poor, poor little boy paid the price for their greed. Unbelievable!

[Jolash]

 

Btw, when reading about the child who runs away from being spanked, did anyone feel like they were a kid again watching Tx Chainsaw Massacre or some other first horror film? "There is no escape..." :w00t:

 

I've read all the posts, and I am just sick. I think of the poor child who was the "model" for this "method" and it literally makes me want to puke. I can not imagine anything more terrifying than having the person who claims to love you more than any other living person coming after you, laughing all the while, taunting you with a promise of more punishment when they catch you.

[sdWTMer]

Awesome post.

[*anj*]

:lurk5:

[Melissa in CA]

There was a time when it was normal for children to be spanked or switched. My dad use to talk about having to go out to the barn to get his own switch. And you know what. He and his brothers and sisters grew up to be well-adjusted, contributing members of society. And they were NOT abused.

 

In those days children were more obedient & well-behaved. And there were fewer discipline problems, children running wild, teens running the streets, and juvenile hall was MUCH smaller. Schools were more productive too. Johnny didn't have ADD, Johnny knew to keep his trap shut and his butt in his chair.

 

I do beleive in spanking.

 

:iagree::iagree: I have stayed away from this thread knowing it would be a hot topic, but I'm sorry, our teenagers are a rebellious mess! There IS a difference between spanking abusively and spanking to teach/correct. My boys have all gotten a spanking when needed, and not once as teenagers have they ever talked back to me, disrespected me in any way, said they "hate" me, threatened to "run away," etc. They are very well adjusted boys who even have the respect of their elders! Employers love them because they are different than todays average rebellious tatted-out pierced vulgar mouthed teenager.

 

Spanking in love is possible. I did not spank my children in anger, and I did not like or enjoy spanking them and would even tell them so. I also did not spank for silly things. Spankings in our house were for direct disobedience, not childhood stupidity. As my boys got older, they knew that dad would do the spanking when he got home from work...and he did, no questions asked. It is consistency in love.

 

And definitely, DEFINITELY talk with your child afterwords holding and loving them, letting them know that you do not spank out of delight; this is not possible when you spank out of anger though, as you are waaay out of control and too angry to express any true love to them. They can feel your anger, despite the words that come from your mouth. The key is to not let them get you angry. Disappointed yes; it is natural to be upset when your child disobeys, but angry? No.

 

If you are a person who flys off the handle and has no self control, then you have no place spanking your child. Period. Until you yourself learn to discipline your emotions, you best come up with another form of punishment...but make it hurt. Sending them to their room for an hour is not punishment! Not letting them attend a function they have been looking forward too, is. They need to know that there ARE consequences for disobediance...and they are very painful ones.

 

I see far to many parents out of control in all areas of parenting. It shocks me when I hear a parent (good friend of mine) tell her child that he cannot do something or have something and then the child does it anyhow...right. in. front. of. the. parent! Rebelliously looking at the parent as he does so! With no consequences whatsoever. Shocking. :001_huh:

 

I am not at all surprised by today's youth and it's only going to get worse in this humanistic culture of ours...

 

[ETA: I do not read or follow the Pearls at all. I personally don't care for them nor do I advocate their particular form of teaching! Setting a child up for failure just so you can punish them is horrible...and don't even get me started on spanking with "tools!" Good grief.]

[nmoira]

I am not at all surprised by today's youth and it's only going to get worse in this humanistic culture of ours...

 

Melissa, please just make sure you don't equate lack of spanking with permissiveness or spanking with good parenting.

Or for that matter, secular or secular humanist families with the downfall of civilization as we know it. Some of us manage to raise compassionate and considerate children without having a household god.

[HRAAB]

Or for that matter, secular or secular humanist families with the downfall of civilization as we know it. Some of us manage to raise compassionate and considerate children without having a household god.

 

:iagree:

[Melissa in CA]

Melissa, please just make sure you don't equate lack of spanking with permissiveness or spanking with good parenting. I don't spank, but I'm not permissive.[/Quote]

 

Oh my! I did not mean that at all! I am just saying that spanking works, if done in the right way. I am NOT saying that other forms of punishment are not just as effective. We did spank, but we also used other forms of punishment as well. I am not saying spanking is the miracle cure to rebellious children, but that children need some form of 'painful' consequence for their disobedience. Too many parents are just turning a blind eye, not following through with their punishment threats, and/or giving punishments that are a complete joke.

 

And yes, we all get angry! Anger and spanking do not go hand-in-hand though...it is a volatile combination; that is what I was trying to convey as I am sure many agree. If your child angers you easily, I would suggest spanking not be your form of punishment [not you personally, but parents in general]. But, on the other hand, to outlaw spanking as some would suggest would be wrong as well, it does NOT always equate with abuse. That would be like outlawing homeschooling because some parents use that as a form of hiding abuse.

 

You are wise to know what is best in your situation and for your child or children. My youngest son is very soft hearted. All I have to do is raise my voice sternly and he is ready to repent and obey! He has been the easiest of children to raise. I believe he has had maybe two spankings in his 11 years of life. To spank this child for things I had to spank my older two for would be detrimental to him and hurt him considerably. What is best for one child/situation is not always best for another. ;)

[Melissa in CA]

:001_huh:

[nmoira]

 

:001_huh:

It was your comment about the "humanistic culture." "Humanism/humanist" thought has a long intellectual history. There have been a number of recent threads here about morals and morality with and without gods.

[Murphy101]

It is the case that in one of the websites linked during this thread, Pearl himself refers to physical discipline as the enforcer that gives effectiveness to the whole system. My words, summarizing his.

 

YES! That's what I was getting at. I think this is really what Melissa was tryign to convey also. Reasonable spanking in and of itself is never abusive. But even then it shouldn't be the only means, or even the "cornerstone", of disipline in the home. If the ONLY effective means to any system is a rod, then the parents are either too lazy to actually take the time to parent or power tripping nuts. Saying they are doing it out of love only adds insult to the injury. We spank, but it is by no means the cornerstone of our parenting or the first means to all parenting solutions.

 

As parents we have an obligation to get to know our children personally and to think on how best to approach a situation with that child, not just automaticly grab the nearest hard object to beat submission into them. As I said before, it probably would work, but that's a poor second to what a truely loving parent should really want from their kids.

[Melissa in CA]

Some of us manage to raise compassionate and considerate children without having a household god.

 

I'm sorry but I have to respectfully disagree with this. Not about the raising of compassionate considerate children...this I agree with totally...though on average immorality abounds greatly in the humanistic families that I personally know. Of course what I see as immoral according to the bible, they see as perfectly normal. The bible means nothing to them. I understand this completely. We are friends, and though I don't agree with them, we respect and love one another.

 

OK, what I disagree with in your statement is that I believe everyone 'worships' something; whether it is the God of the Bible that is governing a family, or self; human reasoning. Some even "worship" education :blink:...imagine that! :lol: (yes, I find myself doing that far too often). :tongue_smilie:

 

Basically, what I am saying is that I believe we all have and follow a household 'god' of some form or another. Something is governing our mindset and choices. I just prefer following (and imperfectly I might add) the God with a big 'G.' :D

[Melissa in CA]

It was your comment about the "humanistic culture." "Humanism/humanist" thought has a long intellectual history. There have been a number of recent threads here about morals and morality with and without gods.

 

Well, I think I'll just stear clear of those threads then. ;) I've gotten myself in enough trouble already with not being able to express my thoughts accurately.

 

:leaving: I'm cutting my losses; taking my ball and going back to where I'm loved...:lol:

[bairnmama]

OK, what I disagree with in your statement is that I believe everyone 'worships' something; whether it is the God of the Bible that is governing a family, or self; human reasoning. Some even "worship" education :blink:...imagine that! :lol: (yes, I find myself doing that far too often). :tongue_smilie:

 

Basically, what I am saying is that I believe we all have and follow a household 'god' of some form or another. Something is governing our mindset and choices. I just prefer following (and imperfectly I might add) the God with a big 'G.' :D

 

 

:iagree:

[VaKim]

I'm sorry but I have to respectfully disagree with this. Not about the raising of compassionate considerate children...this I agree with totally...though on average immorality abounds greatly in the humanistic families that I personally know. Of course what I see as immoral according to the bible, they see as perfectly normal. The bible means nothing to them. I understand this completely. We are friends, and though I don't agree with them, we respect and love one another.

 

OK, what I disagree with in your statement is that I believe everyone 'worships' something; whether it is the God of the Bible that is governing a family, or self; human reasoning. Some even "worship" education :blink:...imagine that! :lol: (yes, I find myself doing that far too often). :tongue_smilie:

 

Basically, what I am saying is that I believe we all have and follow a household 'god' of some form or another. Something is governing our mindset and choices. I just prefer following (and imperfectly I might add) the God with a big 'G.' :D

 

:iagree:

 

Ditto.

[nmoira]

I'm sorry but I have to respectfully disagree with this. Not about the raising of compassionate considerate children...this I agree with totally...though on average immorality abounds greatly in the humanistic families that I personally know. Of course what I see as immoral according to the bible, they see as perfectly normal. The bible means nothing to them. I understand this completely. We are friends, and though I don't agree with them, we respect and love one another.

We've managed to make it through this entire thread without painting Christians as child abusers (and rightly so). I'd appreciate it if we could show humanists the same respect when it comes to moral issues. IMHO, you were clear in your previous post.

 

I'm not going to debate this in this thread. As I said, there have been a number of threads here recently for this exact purpose.

[Joanne]

There was a time when it was normal for children to be spanked or switched. My dad use to talk about having to go out to the barn to get his own switch. And you know what. He and his brothers and sisters grew up to be well-adjusted, contributing members of society. And they were NOT abused.

 

In those days children were more obedient & well-behaved. And there were fewer discipline problems, children running wild, teens running the streets, and juvenile hall was MUCH smaller. Schools were more productive too. Johnny didn't have ADD, Johnny knew to keep his trap shut and his butt in his chair.

 

 

:iagree::iagree: I have stayed away from this thread knowing it would be a hot topic, but I'm sorry, our teenagers are a rebellious mess! There IS a difference between spanking abusively and spanking to teach/correct. My boys have all gotten a spanking when needed, and not once as teenagers have they ever talked back to me, disrespected me in any way, said they "hate" me, threatened to "run away," etc. They are very well adjusted boys who even have the respect of their elders! Employers love them because they are different than todays average rebellious tatted-out pierced vulgar mouthed teenager.

 

Bold mine.

 

:confused::confused::glare:

 

This is poor logic. It's also simplistic and not accurate.

 

The presence or lack of *spanking* has nothing to do with courtesy, good employees, respectful behavior in adult or near adult children.

 

Running the street, juvenille hall, ADD.....the seeming increase of those issues isn't related to less spanking (and, really, most kids are still spanked). It's a complicated issue; to reduce it to spanking/not spanking is ridiculous.

 

My kids are not tatooed or pierced but I'd like to know the connection between those common pop cultural choices and "good kids"?

 

This is an extreme example of focusing on spanking. Kids don't need spanking. They need real, comprehensive discipline, proactive family design, parents who understand developmental stages and age expected behavior, time, attention and repitition. To assume a cause/effect between *spanking*and the production of good adults is silly.

 

Do I think that parents can spank and provide the best potential for producing active, engaged, healthy citizens? Of course. But to simplify family issues to assume a direct cause/effect between spanking and good kids is very bad logic.

[LisaNY]

Anyone else see the irony in the following juxtaposition?

 

1. In the case of a father molesting children they suggest it is ok as long as he is repentant, or if not that he should go to jail until the kids are raised and then hi wife will be able to welcome the child molester home "with open arms".

 

2. He repeatedly calls homosexuals perverts and that kind of thing.

 

So we should welcome home child molesters and demonize homosexuals? Anyone else baffled by this? Are we suppose to welcome home child molesters so they can victimize their grandchildren then? Or is it just to show the abused children that your "marriage" is more important than defending them against evil? Homosexuals are "perverted" but molesters aren't?

 

 

 

Yes, I have read these things in their newsletters. While we as a family personally disagree with the homosexual lifestyle, we would *never* refer to them as perverts. That is just wrong, and does not reflect G-d's love at all. I remember reading in one of their newsletters about how they were discussing homosexuals one day with their sons. They mocked them. It was just one more thing that solidified my dismissal of the Pearl's as a viable source or authority on parenting.

[HRAAB]

Employers love them because they are different than todays average rebellious tatted-out pierced vulgar mouthed teenager.

 

 

 

I am not at all surprised by today's youth and it's only going to get worse in this humanistic culture of ours...

 

 

So, if I understand you correctly, my daughter with more than the average number of piercings and a tattoo is a vulgar mouthed, rebellious teenager?

 

and....

 

all the problems in the world today are because of the humanists?

 

I think we (collective) tend to make blanket statements without thinking it through entirely. I have done this myself. So I try to extend the benefit of the doubt to the other person. Then again, maybe they meant exactly what they said.

 

My dd with multiple piercings and a tattoo is a lovely, respectful, sweet spoken young lady. She intelligent, hard working and respected by her elders and employers. She is active in her church youth group. In fact, a previous employer called her yesterday asking her to come back to work for a couple months because she was the best young employee he had.

 

This humanist mother has very high moral expectations for her children, and has raised them to be respectful, hard working, honest contributing members of society.

 

Of course, if you feel having piercings or tattoos is immoral, I know quite a few Christians who would fit that description also.

 

Janet

[Liberty]

They did nothing because of money...they wanted to be paid for the completed adoption. No care or concern shown for Sean at all. And this poor, poor little boy paid the price for their greed. Unbelievable!

 

In essence, this death can indeed be scripturally explained: the love of money is the root of all evil.

[LisaNY]

Oh my! I did not mean that at all! I am just saying that spanking works, if done in the right way. I am NOT saying that other forms of punishment are not just as effective. We did spank, but we also used other forms of punishment as well. I am not saying spanking is the miracle cure to rebellious children, but that children need some form of 'painful' consequence for their disobedience. Too many parents are just turning a blind eye, not following through with their punishment threats, and/or giving punishments that are a complete joke.

 

And yes, we all get angry! Anger and spanking do not go hand-in-hand though...it is a volatile combination; that is what I was trying to convey as I am sure many agree. If your child angers you easily, I would suggest spanking not be your form of punishment [not you personally, but parents in general]. But, on the other hand, to outlaw spanking as some would suggest would be wrong as well, it does NOT always equate with abuse. That would be like outlawing homeschooling because some parents use that as a form of hiding abuse.

 

You are wise to know what is best in your situation and for your child or children. My youngest son is very soft hearted. All I have to do is raise my voice sternly and he is ready to repent and obey! He has been the easiest of children to raise. I believe he has had maybe two spankings in his 11 years of life. To spank this child for things I had to spank my older two for would be detrimental to him and hurt him considerably. What is best for one child/situation is not always best for another. ;)

 

 

FWIW, that is what I thought you meant.

[bairnmama]

I'm coming to this thread a little late... but have read through the whole thing with great interest. You see... the Pearls actually came to my church a few years back and spoke for several evenings. It was not child/discipline centered at all, but more of a general Biblical reawakening format. I found him to be funny, energetic, and actually very true to the scriptures as I read them (I grew up the daughter of a seminary trained pastor, btw). He had several of his books available for purchase and I bought To Train Up A Child and read it cover to cover. I did find some things in *my* copy that were....shall I say over the top, but nothing that I could call outright abusive. That is why I found Kelli's post to be quite shocking!! The person she described is nothing like the Michael Pearl who spoke in our church with much love and wit. I do believe her.... it's just almost inconceivable to me that we could have had such different experiences with the same person!

 

I did put some of their training methods into practice with very good results. I never used a 'switch', but I did thump my infants' hands when they reached for something they could not have (glasses on my face, books by the couch, cabinets that were 'off limits'... we lived in a very tiny house that we could not alter nor child proof because of my dh's occupational specialty) or disobeyed a 'no' command. I did read about swatting an infant's legs to teach sitting calmly, but that was in the context of a religious service where there was no nursery and the floor was bare and too cold to sit. [i just got my book and looked it up - the story was about an Amish boy on his father's lap struggling to get down where he was not allowed to during an extended meeting lasting over an hour and about teaching a child to be content wherever they are required to be.] I cannot imagine suggesting to use this kind of 'training' during story time - that is snuggly and fun and no place for training of any kind... except maybe reading basics if kept fun. I have worked on training my children's willfulness with the strong belief that they will never bow in submission to God if they do not first submit to my authority in the home - does that sound abusive? They are both exceedingly curious, fun-loving, and I don't consider their wills to be broken, just trained to not be so self-centered. I am often receiving comments about how caring, giving, and polite my children are as well as how happy and bubbly and full of imagination. It is very rare now that I have to 'spank' my children, even my 3 yr old, and I believe it is because of the attention I spent on training them while quite young. I accept being disappointed, angry, or sad, but I do not accept sulking or arguing or fit throwing. I apologize when I've been too harsh and ask their forgivness. We have a wonderful relationship and I enjoy my children everyday. Don't get me wrong, we do have our moments of frustration, irritation, and such, but the majority of the time it is a joy!

 

Again, not to discredit anyone's personal account (no one should have to go through what Kelli has described and I thank her for sharing such a personal issue), this is all coming from my personal experience with M. Pearl and the one book of his that I have read.

[Kelli in TN]

Well, I think I'll just stear clear of those threads then. ;) I've gotten myself in enough trouble already with not being able to express my thoughts accurately.

 

:leaving: I'm cutting my losses; taking my ball and going back to where I'm loved...:lol:

 

Melissa,

I can recognize you as my precious sister in Christ even though we have never met.

 

But I want to gently tell you that some of your comments did take this conversation in a direction that it did not need to go in. The real conversation was about leaders who teach an unhealthy and even dangerous parenting and family life philosophy. It was never a thread that was Christians vs. non Christians and many who spoke up in this thread might have their own personal feelings about Christianity, but they put that aside and were respectful towards us. And given that these teachings were coming from and at the Christian community, they had plenty of ammunition to lob some pretty big bombs if it had been in their hearts to do so.

 

We are a motley crew on this board and the Christians are not likely to convince the non Christians to change their belief system and the non Christians are not likely to cause the Christians to change theirs. I think we are better served when we respect the differences and take solace in the similarities.

 

I say this as humbly as I know how and please know that I would gladly sit next to you and enjoy worshipping with you any old time.

 

I hope you won't feel slighted by my words, I do not mean to offend.

[Joanne]

except maybe reading basics if kept fun. I have worked on training my children's willfulness with the strong belief that they will never bow in submission to God if they do not first submit to my authority in the home - does that sound abusive?

 

No, not necessarily abusive.

 

But not Biblical either.

 

We can't save our children through our discipline of them. Only God can save them. In addition, children who were not adequately disciplined as children have the same access (and need of) a Savior as adults as children raised in a God fearing home.

 

Parent/child and God/child comparisons are limited in application. It's not the same relationship. They share common elements, but God doesn't have grandchildren and you are not God to your children.

[Pamela H in Texas]

Bairnmama,

 

I think the key sentence in your post was "I believe it is because of the attention I spent on training them while quite young."

 

You're absolutely correct. And all of that could have been accomplished without swatting AT ALL or considerably less (the exact amount doesn't matter, it could always be less).

 

I'm not saying this to criticize you so much as to get people thinking. WHY choose swatting (switching, belting, smacking, spanking, etc) when other methods work just as well? When it all comes down to consistently training, why NOT do it in a different way that doesn't require hitting in some manner or another?

 

Again, my point isn't to criticize YOU because you've done what you've done and I see no reason to rehash that. My point is simply to get someone who has an infant or toddler to just THINK, think for just a second. They have a CHOICE. THEY get to take responsibility for that. No CHILD needs to be hit to be trained. Instead, like you said, they need consistent attention to their training while quite young :)

 

I can see people swatting a 3, 4, 5 yr old for a handful of things a handful of times. I have a REALLY hard time seeing swatting an infant or toddler. The very idea upsets me. These are people who have not had the time, relationship, opportunity to learn yet. I can see punishing a child when they truly "know better" (though I think there are better ways THERE too). But an infant or toddler is figuring the world out, figuring out how things work, wonders if the same thing happens EVERY time, etc.

 

I liken it to starting a new job. I know NOTHING about this job but they agreed to hire me anyway. Instead of docking my pay, swatting me, rolling their eyes, etc every time I do something wrong, they TEACH me. They give me a manual. They stand beside me as I learn. They might guide me through step by step. They may even have to manually put my hands in the right place. They help me when I get stuck. They are gentle, mild, forgiving. If I make a mistake, they guide me again. They catch it again, they try to communicate the idea a little differently. But I'm just learning and they patiently teach me every step of the way.

 

Now, if down the road 6 months (which is 3-5 years kid wise, I would guess), I decide to intentionally do differently, then they will be firm and more blunt. They may well make threats even dock my pay or fire me. But that is AFTER the training period. AFTER they gave proper attention, teaching, guidance, they may well have to follow through with consequences on rare occasions. But they didn't do it my first weeks on the job.

 

I'm just rambling. I'm a bit hyper and excited today. Like I mentioned before, to me, threads like this are really to reach the mom who IS considering changing her ways not to change the minds of people who are happy with theirs (though ya never know....maybe something said will spark an interest in tweaking something in just about anyone. I personally have learned a LOT in threads like these over the years. If I ever have another child.......).

[Pamela H in Texas]

We can't save our children through our discipline of them.

 

Aw fiddlesticks...another time we disagree!

 

Actually, the scriptures say that we can definitely aid our children towards salvation by our discipline (teaching/guidance/correction/etc) of them. This is actually spoken of more than once in the scriptures, some of those times in connection with the rod scriptures as well as scriptures regarding authority. We can't cause their salvation, of course. They have to reach for that and accept it and keep it for themselves. But we can set them upon the right path, encourage character and fruitage that will aid them in those regards.

 

I don't wish to preach to anyone on this thread, of course. I'm just saying that the scriptures do support the original assertion that by disciplining our children (including submission to authority), we can lead them towards salvation.

[bairnmama]

We can't save our children through our discipline of them. Only God can save them. In addition, children who were not adequately disciplined as children have the same access (and need of) a Savior as adults as children raised in a God fearing home.

 

Parent/child and God/child comparisons are limited in application. It's not the same relationship. They share common elements, but God doesn't have grandchildren and you are not God to your children.

 

 

Right.... I certainly agree to that. It is not my intention to even try to save them. That has to be a personal decision and a matter between them and God. I guess what I meant to say was something like.....

 

God has entrusted these children to me to show them the way to Him. I need to show them, through my dealings with them, the characterisitcs of a godly life. God corrects His children, teaches them, loves them, even punishes them. When our children are very small, what they know of God comes from us. It is when their minds mature that they can discern the differences. Does that make sense?

[Camy-7 boybarians 1 lady]

Well-said, Kim.

 

Blessings,

Camy

[Melissa in CA]

This is poor logic. It's also simplistic and not accurate.

 

The presence or lack of *spanking* has nothing to do with courtesy, good employees, respectful behavior in adult or near adult children.

 

Running the street, juvenille hall, ADD.....the seeming increase of those issues isn't related to less spanking (and, really, most kids are still spanked). It's a complicated issue; to reduce it to spanking/not spanking is ridiculous.

 

My kids are not tatooed or pierced but I'd like to know the connection between those common pop cultural choices and "good kids"?

 

This is an extreme example of focusing on spanking. Kids don't need spanking. They need real, comprehensive discipline, proactive family design, parents who understand developmental stages and age expected behavior, time, attention and repitition. To assume a cause/effect between *spanking*and the production of good adults is silly.

 

Do I think that parents can spank and provide the best potential for producing active, engaged, healthy citizens? Of course. But to simplify family issues to assume a direct cause/effect between spanking and good kids is very bad logic.

 

My logic in your eyes may be poor, Joanne, but in all honesty you are over-analyzing the intent of my post. ;) If you read my other posts you will HOPEFULLY see that I do not believe in JUST spanking, but that spanking is a legitimate form of discipline. We disciplined our children with a variety of punishments and our children still, today, love and respect us partly do to said discipline. The general lack of true consistant discipline in families seems to be one main issue in teen rebellion, but there are, of course, many other issues involved. I am not so simple-minded as to not realize that.:001_huh:

 

What you said here:

 

They need real, comprehensive discipline, proactive family design, parents who understand developmental stages and age expected behavior, time, attention and repitition. To assume a cause/effect between *spanking*and the production of good adults is silly.

 

Is exactly what I believe. But I do believe that proper discipline (even if it is just spanking) will bring about good results; which helps produce "good adults" and isn't that what we parents are aiming for? To raise self-controlled, respectable, mature adults? I don't find that silly at all.

 

Also, I know for a fact that many employers look down on, and will often not hire teens AND adults because of, excessive tattoos, piercing, etc. They feel it shows a lack of character & maturity. Not my words...theirs. Take that however you'd like, just don't blame me for it.

 

I am personally not an employer, but I know that if I were and I had two applicants with equal abilities; one clean cut and free of 'self expression' and the other not...I would most definitely pick the clean cut one to represent my business. Sorry but there it is. Well, unless of course my business would be enhanced by said "self-expression." :D

 

I also don't believe that kids follow cultural trends because of a lack of parental discipline...so let's not go there. I suppose it could be a lack of parental guidance? Hmmm, I honestly don't know. I personally was never a trend follower growing up, so I really have no clue what is going on the the minds of teens and why they want to express themselves the way they do. I personally don't understand it, nor care for it. I just know that my children have no desire to express themselves in that way and I am so very thankful for it, as are their current employers who have told them so.

[bkpan]

I'm coming to this thread a little late... but have read through the whole thing with great interest. You see... the Pearls actually came to my church a few years back and spoke for several evenings. It was not child/discipline centered at all, but more of a general Biblical reawakening format. I found him to be funny, energetic, and actually very true to the scriptures as I read them (I grew up the daughter of a seminary trained pastor, btw). He had several of his books available for purchase and I bought To Train Up A Child and read it cover to cover. I did find some things in *my* copy that were....shall I say over the top, but nothing that I could call outright abusive. That is why I found Kelli's post to be quite shocking!! The person she described is nothing like the Michael Pearl who spoke in our church with much love and wit. I do believe her.... it's just almost inconceivable to me that we could have had such different experiences with the same person!

 

I did put some of their training methods into practice with very good results. I never used a 'switch', but I did thump my infants' hands when they reached for something they could not have (glasses on my face, books by the couch, cabinets that were 'off limits'... we lived in a very tiny house that we could not alter nor child proof because of my dh's occupational specialty) or disobeyed a 'no' command. I did read about swatting an infant's legs to teach sitting calmly, but that was in the context of a religious service where there was no nursery and the floor was bare and too cold to sit. [i just got my book and looked it up - the story was about an Amish boy on his father's lap struggling to get down where he was not allowed to during an extended meeting lasting over an hour and about teaching a child to be content wherever they are required to be.] I cannot imagine suggesting to use this kind of 'training' during story time - that is snuggly and fun and no place for training of any kind... except maybe reading basics if kept fun. I have worked on training my children's willfulness with the strong belief that they will never bow in submission to God if they do not first submit to my authority in the home - does that sound abusive? They are both exceedingly curious, fun-loving, and I don't consider their wills to be broken, just trained to not be so self-centered. I am often receiving comments about how caring, giving, and polite my children are as well as how happy and bubbly and full of imagination. It is very rare now that I have to 'spank' my children, even my 3 yr old, and I believe it is because of the attention I spent on training them while quite young. I accept being disappointed, angry, or sad, but I do not accept sulking or arguing or fit throwing. I apologize when I've been too harsh and ask their forgivness. We have a wonderful relationship and I enjoy my children everyday. Don't get me wrong, we do have our moments of frustration, irritation, and such, but the majority of the time it is a joy!

 

Again, not to discredit anyone's personal account (no one should have to go through what Kelli has described and I thank her for sharing such a personal issue), this is all coming from my personal experience with M. Pearl and the one book of his that I have read.

 

I was starting to feel pretty alone in this lynch mob (relax:chillpill:, just kidding!). Really, your experience is much like my own. What so many of these posters has described has been SO different from what I've encountered in the Pearl's ministry. It's almost as if we can't be talking about the same people.

 

Ironically enough, I just received their NGJ (No Greater Joy) newsletter yesterday, and as I was thumbing through it, I was struck by how the passionate negativity expressed by so many here, was contrasted by the tone of the newsletter. It was about silly boys, missionary training and evangelism, etc. with many pictures of little ones expressing joy. It is not that I agree with everything that the Pearl's teach. I don't. But, I'm not sure that I've read or listened to any "parenting" teachers that I have not disagreed with on some level, some where.

 

I think a lot has been blown way out of proportion over what they teach. Again, they are a product of a Southern culture that is just as warm and nurturing as any, but has a level of "humor" that some may not get if you haven't been around it. It is not the intent to mock or belittle a child. It is to add "lightness" and in a sense to mirror back to a child how "immature" the behavior is.

 

I would guess that even those that haven't been exposed to Southern, rural mannerisms have read Tom Sawyer, Huck Finn, movies, and others that depict how discipline is administered, what a "whuppin" looks like. You know, for some it really does "work" if you will. The child knows WHY they are being disciplined and knows the love of their parent the same way that a child from a non-spanking parent may be secure in their parent's love. I suggest that it is really OK for some families.

 

Anyway, the judgement that has been passed here is harsh, and I would suggest that much of it is somewhat ignorant. I have read many of their books, seen videos of Michael Pearl's seminars, and receive their newsletter. Again, we next to never spank at our home anymore, but that doesn't mean that I can't still find value in much of their writing. Some of it definitely will not "fit" us. We are not a born and raised Southern family and we aren't going to try and fit that mold.

 

Anyway, this will probably be misunderstood, as I feel other posters have been. NO ONE is advocating child abuse, in fact, believe it or not, the Pearl's premise is that you prevent a great deal of abuse when your children have been trained to obey. It cuts down on mom or dad's impatience and anger.

 

So, just another perspective. I know that many disagree and that's OK. We should raise our dc to the best of our understanding.

 

Kim

[unsinkable]

I was starting to feel pretty alone in this lynch mob (relax:chillpill:, just kidding!). Really, your experience is much like my own. What so many of these posters has described has been SO different from what I've encountered in the Pearl's ministry. It's almost as if we can't be talking about the same people.

 

Ironically enough, I just received their NGJ (No Greater Joy) newsletter yesterday, and as I was thumbing through it, I was struck by how the passionate negativity expressed by so many here, was contrasted by the tone of the newsletter. It was about silly boys, missionary training and evangelism, etc. with many pictures of little ones expressing joy. It is not that I agree with everything that the Pearl's teach. I don't. But, I'm not sure that I've read or listened to any "parenting" teachers that I have not disagreed with on some level, some where.

 

I think a lot has been blown way out of proportion over what they teach. Again, they are a product of a Southern culture that is just as warm and nurturing as any, but has a level of "humor" that some may not get if you haven't been around it. It is not the intent to mock or belittle a child. It is to add "lightness" and in a sense to mirror back to a child how "immature" the behavior is.

 

I would guess that even those that haven't been exposed to Southern, rural mannerisms have read Tom Sawyer, Huck Finn, movies, and others that depict how discipline is administered, what a "whuppin" looks like. You know, for some it really does "work" if you will. The child knows WHY they are being disciplined and knows the love of their parent the same way that a child from a non-spanking parent may be secure in their parent's love. I suggest that it is really OK for some families.

 

Anyway, the judgement that has been passed here is harsh, and I would suggest that much of it is somewhat ignorant. I have read many of their books, seen videos of Michael Pearl's seminars, and receive their newsletter. Again, we next to never spank at our home anymore, but that doesn't mean that I can't still find value in much of their writing. Some of it definitely will not "fit" us. We are not a born and raised Southern family and we aren't going to try and fit that mold.

 

Anyway, this will probably be misunderstood, as I feel other posters have been. NO ONE is advocating child abuse, in fact, believe it or not, the Pearl's premise is that you prevent a great deal of abuse when your children have been trained to obey. It cuts down on mom or dad's impatience and anger.

 

So, just another perspective. I know that many disagree and that's OK. We should raise our dc to the best of our understanding.

 

Kim

 

Kim,

 

What is child abuse?

[Joanne]

Is exactly what I believe. But I do believe that proper discipline (even if it is just spanking) will bring about good results; which helps produce "good adults" and isn't that what we parents are aiming for? To raise self-controlled, respectable, mature adults? I don't find that silly at all.

 

Yes, I agree. But your post attributed outcome to spanking specifically.

 

My logic in your eyes may be poor, Joanne, but in all honesty you are over-analyzing the intent of my post. If you read my other posts you will HOPEFULLY see that I do not believe in JUST spanking, but that spanking is a legitimate form of discipline. We disciplined our children with a variety of punishments and our children still, today, love and respect us partly do to said discipline.

 

I'll skip the discussion about using punishment. ;-) I'd say that your children are the result of your whole discipline/family/parenting approach and that's my point; to broaden it from the myopic focus on spanking (or not).

 

The general lack of true consistant discipline in families seems to be one main issue in teen rebellion, but there are, of course, many other issues involved. I am not so simple-minded as to not realize that

 

I agree, but the post I responded to attributed all sorts of disconnect, discourtesy and rebellion to lack of spanking.

 

 

Also, I know for a fact that many employers look down on, and will often not hire teens AND adults because of, excessive tattoos, piercing, etc. They feel it shows a lack of character & maturity. Not my words...theirs. Take that however you'd like, just don't blame me for

it.

 

That's a completely different topic and reality. What I objected to was the assumption of *bad character* based on cosmetic expression you coupled with the vulgar, discourteous teens you think are prevalent.

 

Edited to add: The post you are responding to of mine includes quotes that are not from you also; I was responding to more than one person. :-)

[Melissa in CA]

We've managed to make it through this entire thread without painting Christians as child abusers (and rightly so). I'd appreciate it if we could show humanists the same respect when it comes to moral issues. IMHO, you were clear in your previous post.

 

Moira, you're right. Forgive me. I was only speaking of my own personal humanist friends and how differently we think morally. That does not mean that I don't respect them. We get along famously. I truly am not the judgmental, do-it-my-way-or-you're-wrong sort, nor do I like to debate...well...anything! :D

 

I should not have mentioned anything about Humanism in my initial post...I was not thinking (nor do I often post in the general boards...with good reason ;))

 

I'm sorry if I offended. Truly.

[SFP]

I grew up in the rural South and my parents didn't whup, beat, or spank me.

 

Guess we were too far back in the hills to get the memo.

[bkpan]

Kim,

 

What is child abuse?

 

Great question! And I think it goes right to the heart of my post. The answer may look different depending on the culture. We happen to live in a time where children have a great deal of freedom, comfort and advantages that are unprecedented. My grandparents were deeply loved by their parents, but they had to quit school in 8th grade and work full-time to help the family. They were switched with a willow branch when they disobeyed and were generally "seen and not heard". They felt blessed by their upbringing and loved by their parents. They would tell stories of their "whippings" with a smile and great humor (maybe even momma chasing me to whip me!).

 

Now, could someone else tell a similar story with agony and pain?? Certainly. The difference is the Love I suppose. Were the parents disciplining their children in Love or in selfishness and anger? Children know the diffenece, I think.

 

So, I don't know if I can give a def. of child abuse, but I'm sure that it looks different to different people. I am not trying to limit this to just spanking. There is a whole range of discipline that works for some and not others. I would suggest that maybe we shouldn't be so sure that we can conclude every instance is abusive because it looks SO different than what we would consider appropriate. Hitting in anger, betraying a child's dignity, words meant to wound, might begin the list of what is abusive, but the total list may look different to each of us in the end.

 

Kim

[Carol in Cal.]

 

I would guess that even those that haven't been exposed to Southern, rural mannerisms have read Tom Sawyer, Huck Finn, movies, and others that depict how discipline is administered, what a "whuppin" looks like. You know, for some it really does "work" if you will. The child knows WHY they are being disciplined and knows the love of their parent the same way that a child from a non-spanking parent may be secure in their parent's love. I suggest that it is really OK for some families.

 

Kim

 

Kim,

Many of us do know what a 'whuppin' looks like. Some of us have experienced them. Some of us have dished them out. Some of us continue and some of us don't.

 

Most of us have also read Huck Finn. Remember the domestic violence in that book? Remember Huck's dad knocking him literally unconscious and leaving him like that, locked in with no way out even in case of fire? Remember how once he got hit he felt like he was back home again?

 

Well. Do ya think that that's how I want my DD to feel 'at home'? Cause flat out it is not. Do ya think that I want her to think for even one little minute that if her husband hits or threatens her it might be legitimate? Nope I sure do not. Do ya think that I want her to marry someone who has been raised that way? I would throw my body across the aisle if I had to to prevent it.

 

As Pearl's own description shows, this is not funny, and it is not light. It is not really about discipline. It is about power, control, and who has the right to anger and its expression and who does not even have the right to feel or show dismay. And, to an alarming but somewhat subtle extent in the writings of Pearl's that have been cited in this thread, it is a bit s**ualized. Frankly, this is disgusting.

 

Now, there are parents I respect who do spank their children on occasion. But the way that the Pearl's do this, the way that they make it the real authoritative trump card in their whole child raising procedure, the foundation that really enforces the whole thing--that is sick and abusive. Not everyone who follows them is sick and abusive, but those descriptions of long, negotiated, ritualized beatings are sick and abusive. The cited frequency is pretty bad, too.

 

I respect your right to make choices for your own family, and I don't think that spanking should be illegal.

 

But those of us who object to the Pearls are basing this on their own words, in meetings and in their writing. Those of us who object are not all against spanking, although some of us are. This is not about that. It is a much different and larger issue.

 

Best regards,

Carol

[Melissa in CA]

Yes, I agree. But your post attributed outcome to spanking specifically.

 

 

Yes, my initial post was in regards to the thought that spanking in any form is bad, bad, bad. I was just disagreeing and giving our experience. I didn't expect such a backlash for it.

 

I sure didn't know I had to take the time to present my experience LOGICALLY! :lol: Goodness...that is just way too taxing for my pea brain! ;)

[Kelli in TN]

I think a lot has been blown way out of proportion over what they teach. Again, they are a product of a Southern culture that is just as warm and nurturing as any, but has a level of "humor" that some may not get if you haven't been around it.

 

You know, just the very true story of passing out those slips of paper, requesting that wives list three things they wish their husband would change and then using that information to make fun of the women should be enough to bring this man's intentions into question.

 

And this was at a Tennessee church. Tennessee is pretty darn southern.

 

Really, I might be a dang Yankee by birth and upbringing, but I have been here for over 20 years and I really do understand and enjoy redneck humor.

 

There was nothing funny about that seminar.

 

And while I refuse to malign my family and all the hurts and wrongs have been dealt with and are in the past I must say that northerners do indeed know a thing or two about child abuse. Yes, indeed, whuppin' kids may be called by a different name in the little communities surrounding Chicago, but as of the 60's and 70's the concept was alive and well.