Wednesday, 31 March 2010

• A review of "To Train Up a Child"

  Introduction

  For some time, now, I’ve wanted to write a review of the book, “To Train Up a Child” by Michael and Debi Pearl. Since a second child has recently died at the hands of parents following the instructions in this book, it seems like a good time to do it.

  I used to really like this little booklet. It just seemed so full of common sense. Michael Pearl has a very direct way about him and in a day when it seems that so few people stand up for anything, it’s refreshing to find someone who is willing to say what he believes and to stand for his convictions.

  But then I read the book in Spanish. I don’t know if I was paying more attention since I wasn’t reading in my native language or if things that I was used to hearing in English just sounded different in Spanish, but something caused me to really start questioning this book.

  Those questions have grown over the last several years and I would like to share some of my concerns now with you. I want to point out some of what I think is good in the book -- things that make it appealing to many people -- along with some theological concerns I have with the book and teachings that really disturb me.

  Please know that I am not judging Michael and Debi Pearl’s motives for writing this book. I do not think that they have wrong motives; I’m just questioning what they actually say (or write, in this case).

  The Good

  While reading “To Train Up a Child,” it doesn’t take very long to start finding points with which one can heartily agree. Quotes like, “Parents who purchase compliance through promise of reward are turning their child into a racketeer” (page 11) make total sense and make us want to say a resounding “Amen.”

  A whole chapter is devoted to the idea of “Tying Heartstrings” encouraging parents to stay connected to their children. In areas of discipline, they encourage us to be consistent, admonish against disciplining in anger and remind us to never give into whining.

  They remind us that raising our children is our God-given responsibility, and we benefit from the reminder.

  Because of these good points in “To Train Up a Child,” people have encouraged me to “Chew up the meat and spit out the bones.” But is the “meat” in this book good enough to make it worth reading? Does the meat outweigh the bones? Or would it be best to leave both on the bookshelf and look somewhere else for parenting advice?

  I think we have to look carefully at the rest of what they teach in the light of Scripture.

  The Bad (Theology)

  One thing that alarms me about the book “To Train Up a Child” is the theology of it. This book is supposed to be Christian and Michael Pearl uses (or misuses, as we will later investigate) Scripture to support his theories. Because of that, we should be Bereans and investigate if what he is teaching is really Scriptural.

  I’m going to start with the theories that, in my opinion, are the least offensive but still seem unorthodox or at least questionable and move to the ones that concern me most. You might agree with Michael Pearl on some of these, but please, read through all of these and consider whether or not his teachings are Scripturally sound.

  A Spiritual Fetus

  On pages 15 and 16, Michael Pearl asserts that a child is born morally undeveloped. He says that a child is not a “morally viable soul” and implies that the mentally impaired may also not be morally viable. He deems the age of accountability to be somewhere between 5 and 19.

  His argument is somewhat confusing. I agree that children are developing their sense of right and wrong. But as an adult, my conscience is still learning, growing, “developing” if you will. That doesn’t make me morally not accountable for my actions. In Scripture, God sometimes chooses to not punish those who were young or uninformed (when Israel was going into the promised land, all those under 20 at the time of their rebellion were allowed in, the older ones were not; also, when God chose to have mercy on Ninevah, he cited that they couldn’t tell their right hand from their left). Other times, the young face the consequences of their choices (the young men who mocked Elijah were killed and Proverbs testifies that even a child is known my his actions, whether they are right or wrong.)

  This theory seems to be unorthodox and rather strange to me.

  “An Eye for an Eye” Parenting

  If you’ve read “To Train Up a Child,” you no doubt remember the story about Debi and the little boy who kept hitting his mom with a toy. Debi’s solution was to start hitting the child with a toy, only she made sure she hit him harder than he hit her. The child eventually learned to not hit people with toys.

  So, the method “worked.” That’s the wonder of what the Pearls teach. They always include testimonies as to how their ideas work. “Follow our book and you, too, will have perfectly obedient kids.” But at what price?

  Jesus commands us to not give an eye for an eye. The Pearls encourage doing that very thing and call it “training” (pages 53, 54). It worked. That makes it right. Or does it? The idea is that only doing it their way will bring about these results. But doing it their way in this instance requires disobeying a command of Jesus.

  Training by Tempting

  There is a concerning pattern throughout this book of “training by tempting.” On page 5, we read “When God wanted to ‘train’ his first two children not to touch, He did not place the forbidden object out of their reach. Instead, He placed the ‘tree of knowledge of good and evil’ in the ‘midst of the garden’ (Gen. 3:3). Since it was in the middle of the garden, they would be exposed to its temptation more often. God’s purpose was not to save the tree, but rather to train the couple.”

  An example is given on page 50. Michael writes, “…My wife immediately set up a training session. She took the forbidden object and placed it back on the floor in front of the child. You may say, ‘but that is tempting the child!’ Did not God do the same for Adam and Eve?”

  This appears to be logical. But students of the Word should notice the theological error here. James 1:13 clearly states, “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.” Yet, it is on this idea of tempting children that the Pearls base much of their “training.” (See pages 4-7, 49 and 50 and Chapter 10.)

  God Spanks

  On page 36, there is a section about God “spanking” His children. He bases this on Hebrews 12:6-10, “For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? …Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.”

  Michael Pearl uses this passage to say that God spanks us and therefore we should spank our children. I’m not writing this to say that we should or shouldn’t spank, I’m just looking at his use of Scripture here.

  Hebrews 12 teaches us that God disciplines His children. It’s quite a stretch to say that He spanks the way that the Pearls teach spanking. Actually, it’s laughable. God does NOT have us drop our pants and bend over and then literally strike us on the backside with a stick.

  Michael Pearl misuses this passage by saying that God spanks rather than that God disciplines His children, then he goes further in his misuse of Scripture by saying that spanking is a “means of holiness.” He bases this on the Hebrews 12:10, “For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.”

  God corrects us and disciplines us to make us partakers of His holiness. Michael Pearl asserts that we can make also make our children partakers of God’s holiness by spanking them.

  I can and should discipline my children. God may use this to draw them to Himself, but is that making my child partake of God’s holiness? Even if my child is perfectly obedient, how can he partake of the holiness of God apart from the blood of Jesus? To me, this borders on the heretical.

  Haters of God

  Chapter 17 is titled, “Religious Whips” and encourages people to not do things that will cause children to hate God. The idea seems plausible and some of his advice makes sense. But some of it is concerning to me.

  He warns against saying, “Mama might not see it, but God does.” He tells us not to constrain children by the threat of divine displeasure.

  I grew up in a Christian home, was taught that there were certain things that God didn’t like, that even though Mom wasn’t always watching, God was and did NOT grow up into a hater of God. I learned to fear God. I do not, as Michael Pearl asserts that I should, associate God with condemnation and rejection.

  He also warns against using Scripture in training; we are to simply use the rod and correction (which apparently doesn’t include Scripture.) In contrast, the Bible tells us that Scripture was given for correction and reproof. So using Scripture would be a Biblical way of training our children.

  The Magic Wand

  On page 42, the Pearls write, “Don’t think of the rod as a weapon of defense or a show of force, think of it as a “magic wand”…After a short explanation about bad attitudes and the need to love, patiently and calmly apply the rod to his backside. Somehow, after eight or ten licks, the poison is transformed into gushing love and contentment. The world becomes a beautiful place. A brand new child emerges. It makes an adult stare at the rod in wonder, trying to see what magic is contained therein.”

  One of the problems with Michael Pearl’s teachings on the rod is that he claims his ideas to be Scriptural, yet continuously teaches his own theories.

  Assuming that the verses that reference the rod are referring to spanking and not simply to discipline, as many students of Scripture believe, nothing in Scripture ever implies that it is to be applied to the backside of a child. Nothing tells how many “licks” to give.

  　

  Guilt and Absolution

  On pages 40 and 41, Michael Pearl writes, “Christians find release from their guilt through the Savior who suffered the curse of their sins, but their children cannot yet understand that the Creator has been lashed and nailed in their place. Yet, parents need to wait until their children are old enough to understand the vicarious death of Christ to purge their children of guilt. God has provided parents with a tool to cleanse their children of guilt -- the rod of correction…Parents hold in their hands (in the form of a little switch) the power to absolve the child of guilt, cleanse his soul, instruct his spirit, strengthen his resolve, and give him a fresh start though a confidence that all indebtedness is paid. ‘The blueness of a wound cleanseth away evil: so do stripes the inward parts of the belly (Prov. 20:30).’ ‘Inward parts of the belly’ is a description of the physical sensations associated with guilt…Father, as high priest of the family you can reconcile your child to newness of life…A spanking (whipping, paddling, switching, or belting) is indispensable to the removal of guilt in your child.”

  Need I say more?

  Apparently, children can’t be cleansed by the blood of Jesus, they need spankings to be purged. This is based on Pr. 20:30 which, interestingly, never says that it’s referring to spanking children.

  The truth is that the stripes that remove our guilt are the stripes that were placed on Jesus. If reconciliation with God could be achieved through personal physical punishment, Jesus wouldn’t have had to die. Michael Pearl is teaching heresy.

  Semi-pelagianism

  This is probably the worst theological error in “To Train Up a Child” though it is also very well masked. In the chapter that deals with the concept of a spiritual fetus, you may get an idea that Michael Pearl denies the doctrine of original sin, yet he seems somewhat contradictory in his teachings on the subject. He refers to the flesh (which would lead some of us to believe that he believes in the sin nature), but in other writings, it is obvious that he does indeed deny the doctrine of original sin. (Articles at nogreaterjoy.org such as this one: http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/articles/general-view/archive/2000/september/01/the-will-to-dominate/ show that the Pearls believe a child is entirely the product of his teaching. He wasn’t born with a particular bend toward sin.)

  Some theologians have concluded that Michael Pearl is a Semi-pelagian. This doctrine, deemed heresy by the church in 592, teaches that humanity is tainted by sin, but not to the extent that we cannot cooperate with God's grace on our own. Semi-Pelagianism is, in essence, partial depravity as opposed to total depravity. This teaching asserts that man can, by an act of the will, do right. Semi-pelagian thought teaches that while growing in faith is the work of God, the beginning of faith is an act of the will.

  In “To Train Up a Child,” it is sufficiently evident that the Pearls blame all bad behavior on the parents, none on the child’s nature. Page 68 assures us that children are entirely the product of our training and conditioning. A child isn’t born with a strong will, he’s trained to have a strong will. A child isn’t by nature a certain way (like my very talkative one vs. my very quiet nephew), we’ve conditioned and trained them to be that way.

  Since bad behavior is entirely by training, good behavior can also be entirely by training. There is no need for God’s divine intervention to change a child, his behavior or his nature. Reliance on the Holy Spirit is entirely missing, even when dealing with the fruits of the Spirit. We can instill in our children patience and self-control with proper training. The Holy Spirit doesn’t need to grow His fruits on their lives.

  This teaching is dangerous. Mothers and Fathers are expected to do an impossible task -- making their children holy -- with only one tool, the rod. That little magic wand has somehow replaced the work of the Holy Spirit.

  The Ugly

  There are a few other things in this book that aren’t really theological issues but that I think deserve mentioning.

  Stereotyping

  Throughout the book, the Pearls stereotype mothers in a rather negative way. On page 9, mothers interfere when dads are disciplining because “they crave the gratification of being needed.” On page 34, referring to mothers who don’t spank, they say, “an emotionally weak mother often looks to her child’s clinging dependence for her own self-fulfillment. She finds a deep need within her met as she constantly dotes on the infants every want.” Notice, they don’t say “the infant’s needs” yet a baby’s wants and its needs are the same. He wants a dry diaper; he needs a dry diaper. He wants a full belly; he needs a full belly. But the Pearls portray the mother who finds fulfillment in meeting her baby’s needs as emotionally week. In fact, on pages 34 and 35, when describing the parent who chooses not to spank, most of it is the description of a woman in need of counseling. I find this concerning.

  They discourage normal, natural maternal sentiment, going so far as to say that it can be dangerous. They qualify their statement by saying that sentiment must be submitted to wisdom, which is true. But they seem to define wisdom on their own terms, and that, in my opinion, is where the danger lies.

  (Mis)judging Motives

  Another concerning thing I see in “To Train Up a Child” is the way that the Pearls judge the motives of babies and children. They speak authoritatively and parents simply believe them. The baby that cries when laid in the crib is manipulative. Forget that some children are afraid of the dark, some crib mattresses are uncomfortable or that the baby may be in pain. The Pearls decree that he’s manipulating. Even if the baby simply doesn’t want to lay down, crying is it’s only way of expressing that. To assign such an intent to a baby’s only form of communication creates an adversarial parent-child relationship right from the start. Parents aren’t encouraged to listen to their babies cues and develop with their children the type of relationship God develops with His own, but rather to be suspicious of their baby’s motives and to start “training” them right away.

  Spanking Babies

  The subject of spanking babies is an interesting one. It exposes one of the ways the Pearls sidestep some issues. On their website, they assure us that a 7 month old is too young to be spanked (see “Spanking a 7 month old” at www.nogreaterjoy.org) but if you read “To Train Up a Child,” they actually give instructions on spanking babies.

  On page 8, they describe spanking one of their 5 month olds (and they call it spanking) with a 12 inch long, 1/8 inch in diameter sprig from a willow tree. On page 44, they say, “For the under one year old, a small, ten- to twelve-inch long, willowy branch (stripped of any knots that might break the skin, about 1/8 inch in diameter is sufficient. Sometimes alternatives have to be sought. A one foot ruler, or it’s equivalent in a paddle is a sufficient alternative.”

  How to Spank

  The Pearls also give specific instructions on how to spank children of any age. On page 43, they write, “When the time comes to apply the rod, take a deep breath, relax, and pray, ‘Lord, make this a valuable learning session. Cleanse my child of ill temper and rebellion…’ Don’t be hasty or raise your voice. The child should be able to anticipate the coming rod by your utterly calm and controlled spirit…(I)f you are just beginning to institute training on an already rebellious child that runs from discipline, and he is too incoherent to listen, then use whatever force is necessary to bring him to bay. If you have to sit on him to spank him, the 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. You are to rule over him as a benevolent sovereign. Your word is final.

  “When you administer the rod, tell him to bend over the bed or couch…Slowly begin to spank. If you go too fast, you may not allow time enough for the inner transformation to occur.

  “Use your own judgment as to what is effective. I have found five to ten licks are usually sufficient. As the child gets older, the licks must become more forceful if the experience is going to be effective in purging his rebellion. A general rule is to continue the disciplinary action until the child has surrendered…” (Emphasis mine.)

  On the next page, the Pearls give a warning about acting in extreme and abusing children. They remind the reader of the strong warning Jesus issued to those who would offend children (Mt. 18:6), but they evidently do not consider spanking a child for as long as it takes to cause him to surrender as going to far. Many (myself included) would disagree.

  Michael Pearl sets no limit to how many times it is ok to strike a child. Instead, he says “until the child has surrendered.” The Law of Moses set 40 as the limit for a grown man (Deut. 25: 1-3). It is interesting that God set a limit for adults and gave as the reason that if you continued past that, the man would be degraded in your eyes. It

  makes me wonder at what point a child becomes degraded in the eyes of his parents when there is no limit in spanking.

  Conclusion

  There is much more that can be said about the little booklet “To Train Up a Child,” but I hope I’ve at least caused you to think. Sure, there are some good things in the book, but in light of the horrible theology and the other dangerous advice, is it a book that is worth recommending? For me, it’s not. And though I don’t question the sincerity of Michael and Debi Pearl, I have to question their doctrine and advice, and I encourage others to do so as well.

  • 3:34 PM
  • 588 Views
  • 12 eProps
  • 13 Comments