TulipGirl

Ezzo Week 2010: Else Web 2

Posted by TulipGirl | Under GFI / Ezzo / Babywise Sunday Jul 18, 2010

Joining in the Ezzo Week conversation this week. . .

Pastor Bob Bixby shares ongoing concerns he’s had with the Ezzo parenting materials, especially the impact GKGW has on parents. While a lot of the Ezzo discussions revolve around Babywise, I have very strong concerns about the materials for toddlers and older children. Pastor Bixby highlights some of those as well as some key concerns related to parents.

The Savage’s Lair has shared thoughts on The Irony of Ezzo and AP, and her thoughts have spanned several years and babies. It’s very worth reading parts 1, 2, and 3.

Megan and SortaCrunchy continues her series about how to winsomely share with other people about your Ezzo parenting concerns. It is important to me to really encourage other mothers, and that can be done while still sharing concerns.

Related to that, sometimes it is important for churches to address the issues around Ezzo parenting with grace and gentleness. This is an example of a church which has done that in a way that respected all parents.

And while not specifying Gary Ezzo and Growing Kid’s God’s Way, this post by Pastor Greenwald addresses the presuppositions that almost all parents are prone to, There are No Bad Children, Only Bad Parents.

Would you like your Ezzo Week blog post included? Let me know at tulipgrrl AT gmail.

____________

This post is part of the Ezzo Week 2010 series. As a reminder, we are looking closely at a set of ideas, or “philosophy” as Gary Ezzo terms it – but not being critical of parents who are raising their children with love and the resources which they have.

No Comments »

Evaluating Ezzo’s Biblical Arguments: A Short Course in Hermeneutics

Posted by TulipGirl | Under GFI / Ezzo / Babywise, Theology for Girls Saturday Jul 17, 2010

This is a LONG post consisting of 12 short lessons in evaluating arguments, using examples drawn from Gary Ezzo and his teachings. These were originally posted on a Parent’s Place debate board by Metochoi a “pastor in Nowhere, Texas” who always signed his posts “I love moms and babies.” There were written help people evaluate Biblical merit of Ezzo’s arguments — and his critics’ arguments, as well.

===============================================

HERMENEUTICS #1 — INTRODUCTION

It has often been said that, for any particular passage of scripture, there is only ONE interpretation, but there are MANY applications. But
how do you set about to apply a scripture that you have misinterpreted in the first place? If the interpretation is wrong, then the odds are pretty high that just about ANY application will be erroneous, as well. This is why a proper hermeneutic is crucial in any discussion of doctrine, interpretation, application, etc.

“Hermeneutics” is a word used by theologians to refer to the science of biblical interpretation. It is a foundational building block of good theology [orthodoxy] and good practice [orthopraxis]. In fact, the major streams of theology within confessing Christianity differ largely because of the distinctive hermeneutical methods they use.

In Luke 24, on the road to Emmaus after his resurrection, Jesus “explained” to his walking companions the OT scriptures relating to his own life and ministry. That word translated “explained” is the Greek word “hermeneuo” — meaning “interpreted”. Jesus was “interpreting” the scriptures.

Although there are many seminary graduates who seem to ignore what they were taught in this area, the fact is that virtually all evangelical seminaries teach the same basic methods of biblical interpretation. There are several standard texts that are used in most of them. These principles have been developed throughout the history of the church by godly, learned men, and they have formed the foundation of what is considered sound doctrine since the days of the reformers.

The problem of our day is that so many Christians — including many who would consider themselves quite conservative — have been infected with the notion that just about any personal interpretation is as good as any other — that one opinion is as valid as another — and that one application is as solid as any other. The truth is that, while everyone has a right to his own opinion, NO ONE has the right to have his opinion accepted as valid, or even respected, without showing some evidence FOR that opinion. The same principle applies to scriptural interpretation.

So — how are we to go about testing competing interpretations? How are we to test Ezzo’s assertions about the biblical evidence concerning “spanking,” or “order,” or “first-time obedience”? How would you go about testing MINE — or any other Ezzo-critic’s? That is what the whole topic of hermeneutics is about.

IMO — any serious Christian should strongly consider taking a course in hermeneutics from a local Bible college or seminary — or even by mail order. It is too large a topic for this discussion list, but I will summarize a few of the more important principles that any of us should and could use in our Bible study, and when we hear anyone preaching anything from the Bible.

There are several “do’s” that are important to learn. By practicing these methods, the serious Bible student should be able to at least learn to discern the major errors and departures from sound doctrine. There are also several “don’ts” — things to avoid. And by learning about these wrong methods, and learning to notice when a teacher is practicing one of these wrong methods — one can protect himself from falling for serious error.

===============================================

HERMENEUTICS #2

The first principle of sound hermeneutics is to interpret the Bible LITERALLY. When I say “literally,” I am not talking about a rigid literalism that refuses to understand nuances of language. Literal interpretation means that we understand scripture in its NORMAL, NATURAL sense, which includes an understanding of figures of speech like parables, hyperbole, simile, metaphor, and symbolism.
How would you read a letter from a friend? You would assume a normal, natural meaning to the words, unless something in the letter alerted you to see it another way. Why do so many Christians refuse to treat the word of God with the same respect?

So many people think that the Bible is a mysterious, exotic, collection of magical sayings that need to be deciphered and read like tea leaves. But this first principle states that, since God inspired the Bible for the purpose of communicating with mankind, then God must have wanted us to understand it. The word of God is not a fetish, to be manipulated in order to get from it what WE want; rather, it is a record of propositional truth that God wants to impart to us. And the most obvious way to understand that truth is to begin by taking the words at “face value.”

The words of scripture should be interpreted in the same way words are understood in ordinary daily use. God has communicated his word to us through human language, and there is every reason to assume that his word is to be understood just as we would interpret the language of normal discourse. So the first thing the careful student of scripture should do is to look for the ordinary, literal meaning of the text, and NOT go fishing for some mystical, hidden, deeper, secret meaning that would not be apparent to others.

It is true that some of the apocalyptic passages, and some of the prophecies, contain obvious figures and symbols that must be studied carefully to see the literal truth they are conveying. That kind of symbolic language, however, is not the norm in scripture, and it is conspicuous where it is employed. And — even the figurative language is designed to represent something literal.

Those who abandon the literal principle of interpretation in favor of mystical or allegorical interpretation are really throwing away all hope of achieving any accuracy or coherence. Instead, we end up with a free-for-all, where only the imagination rules. When we deny the literal meaning — by finding instead some “mystical” meaning, or a “personal” meaning, or a “principle” that contradicts that literal meaning — we are not serving scripture by trying to understand it; instead, we are making it our slave by molding to to say what we want it to say.

This amounts to telling God what we think he SHOULD have said, rather than attempting to understand what God actually HAS said. This is known as EISEGESIS — reading INTO the scripture our own ideas — as opposed to EXEGESIS, which is deriving FROM the scriptures the meaning that the author intended to convey in the first place. It dishonors the word of God, and it dishonors the God who gave us his word. Again — think how YOU would feel if someone habitually did such a thing to YOUR words!

Interpret LITERALLY — that is the first principle of solid biblical hermeneutics. And that one principle will protect you from a host of erroneous teachings.

======================================

HERMENEUTICS #3

The second principle of sound interpretation is the HISTORICAL-CULTURAL principle. One of the crucial steps in understanding what a text means is to have some grasp of the cultural, geographical, historical, social, and political setting in which the passage was written. If one understands this context, the passage often will practically interpret itself.
We have to understand the historical and cultural setting if we are to understand the viewpoint of the writer. For example, to understand Paul’s letters to the Corinthians, we must first have a sense of the political, religious, and cultural issues that Paul was dealing with. What do we know about the city, and its times, and its people? What social pressures were involved? What was the culture really like? What was going on in the church?

To understand the historical-cultural setting, we can use Bible dictionaries, Bible handbooks, commentaries, history books, and books about Bible customs. There are many such books available, and many Bibles today include such material in introductions to books and among notations throughout the text. Just be careful not to rely on those books and notes that are written from an obviously biased perspective. There are many Bibles available today that contain notes and commentary from specific perspectives, and I have found that the notes are more designed to push that particular view than to really explain the plain meaning of the text.

The more general books and notes are the most valuable, as the facts in them are generally agreed upon among scholars. I have often had to correct the ideas that some of my church members have gotten from some of their annotated Bibles. For example, whatever position one takes on the issue of “self-esteem,” one thing is certain — the writers of the Bible were not aware of this modern psychological concept, and they did not write the scriptures with this concept in mind. But this has not kept some folks from publishing an entire Bible that twists scripture after scripture in an attempt to preach “self of steam” [as one of my students once put it] from the Bible. Understanding the historical-cultural setting will protect you from this kind of “reading-back-into-the-scriptures” all kinds of modern ideas that may or may not be valid.

#1 = Interpret LITERALLY.
#2 = Understand the HISTORICAL-CULTURAL background.

====================================================

HERMENEUTICS #4

#1 = Interpret LITERALLY.
#2 = Understand the HISTORICAL-CULTURAL background.

The THIRD principle of sound hermeneutics is the LINGUISTIC principle. This involves a good understanding of the grammar, syntax, vocabulary, etc. Often the syntactical structure of a passage is the key to its meaning. Sometimes, for example, the meaning of a sentence can hinge on something as simple as a preposition. It matters a great deal whether a passage says “because of,”"through,” “into,” “in,” “by,” or “with”.

In some cases, the original word can be translated by two or more English words. It is important to know whether the word appearing in an English translation is the most accurate one for the particular syntax and context. If a sentence refers to “this” or “it,” it is important to be able to identify what OTHER word “this” or “it” refers to; that is, we need to accurately identify the ANTECEDENT of the pronoun. Verb tenses and moods, noun cases, participles, etc. — all are important in “figuring out” the intended meaning.

Grammar may not be your favorite subject [I can't understand why not. It is mine!], but we need to be able to grasp the basics of grammar when interpreting the language of scripture. Without an understanding of grammar, we are at the mercy of Bible teachers who misuse, or are ignorant themselves of, grammar, and who end up with interpretations that do NOT fit the language at all.

Even if you do not understand Greek or Hebrew, an interlinear translation would be a valuable tool as you seek to understand the word of God. And pay special attention when a writer or teacher seems to ignore or violate basic rules of grammar in his argument. Learn to do “inductive” Bible study, analyzing the sentences, noticing the verbs, participles, modifiers, etc.

#1 = Interpret LITERALLY.
#2 = Understand the HISTORICAL-CULTURAL background.
#3 = Analyze the LINGUISTIC structure.

====================================================

HERMENEUTICS #5

#1 = Interpret LITERALLY.
#2 = Understand the HISTORICAL-CULTURAL background.
#3 = Analyze the GRAMMATICAL structure.

The FOURTH major principle of sound hermeneutics goes by several different names. The reformers coined two Latin phrases to describe this principle — “Scriptura scripturam interpretatur” [Scripture interprets scripture] and “Analogia Scriptura” [the analogy of scripture]. Some have called it the SYNTHESIS principle.

What does this mean? Even though the Bible was written over a period of 1500 years, by over 40 authors, it is still one unified revelation from God [taking into account the progressive nature of the revelation, of course]. This means that the Bible will NOT contradict itself. In practical terms, it means that if we derive an interpretation from a particular passage that is in conflict with another passage, then wecan be sure that one of the interpretations is wrong — in fact, maybe both are!

The scripture will not contradict itself — rather, it will interpret itself. For example, HEB. 11:6 states that without FAITH it is impossible to please God. Now — how do we know what that passage means by the word FAITH? Well — the Bible defines, describes, and illustrates FAITH again and again — and, in fact, that very verse explains what it means. FAITH is nothing more — and nothing less — than believing God — trusting what God has said.

Another implication of this principle is that we should derive our doctrine from the general tenor of the scripture, as put forth in the large number of passages that speak clearly about a topic, rather than turning to obscure or difficult passages for our understanding. We should be grateful that all the major doctrines are supported by a multitude of different passages. So the difficult or obscure passages should be interpreted in the light of the clear ones, and not vice versa.

For example, there are well over a hundred passages in the NT attesting to the fact that salvation is based on faith alone in Christ alone, with no other conditions whatsoever. So any passage that seems to be adding other conditions should be examined carefully, for the scripture will not contradict itself. It is a characteristic of cults and false teachers that they tend to derive doctrines from a small handful of obscure and difficult passages that they have interpreted apart from the analogy of scripture, and then they impose those questionable interpretations on the much larger number of much clearer passages, twisting the clear scriptures to make them appear to agree with the group’s peculiar interpretation.

For example — we have mentioned Bill Gothard in here occasionally. Gothard has committed this exact error with regard to the subject of circumcision. He has concluded, from his reading of certain OT passages written to OT Jews, that circumcision is a spiritual and moral duty for the NT Christian [something that every major theologian in the history of the church has been unanimous in denying!] — and then he imposes that view on the NT in DEFIANCE of the many NT passages that plainly teach the exact opposite.

If the Bible really is God’s revelation to us, then it must remain internally self-consistent. The synthesis principle puts scripture together with scripture to arrive at a clear, consistent meaning. Beware of any teacher who makes too much out of his own peculiar interpretation of a passage that ignores the analogy of scripture, or who does not show the whole spectrum of passages concerning a particular topic.

Ezzo uses a lot of scripture references in his teaching, but if you will follow up on his references, you will find that, shockingly often, the passages cited are not really speaking about the topic at hand, or they are not saying what he SAYS they are saying. That is a clear warning sign that he is imposing his own views ON the scriptures, rather than deriving his ideas FROM the scriptures. A discerning Christian who understands the importance of the analogy of scripture would recognize this fallacy.

The synthesis principle is crucial in detecting false teachings, and in learning to gain an understanding of the overall meaning and purpose of God’s revelation. I will say more about CONTEXT in a later post.

#1 = Interpret LITERALLY.
#2 = Understand the HISTORICAL-CULTURAL background.
#3 = Analyze the GRAMMATICAL structure.
#4 = Use SYNTHESIS [Compare scripture with scripture].

===================================================

HERMENEUTICS #6

#1 = Interpret LITERALLY.
#2 = Understand the HISTORICAL-CULTURAL background.
#3 = Analyze the GRAMMATICAL structure.
#4 = Use SYNTHESIS [Compare scripture with scripture].

The FIFTH major principle of sound biblical interpretation is the PRACTICAL principle. This is where application does come in. This is the final question to be asked — “So what?” or “What does all this have to do with me?” The problem in our day is that so many teachers AND students of the Bible want to jump directly to application, and bypass all the hard work involved in getting a proper interpretation first.

But application should be the LAST step, NOT the first! Otherwise, one has no basis for discerning whether a particular application is itself biblical and correct. I have seen this again and again — people want ME to tell them WHAT TO DO on the basis of a particular passage, without even bothering to understand what the passage is even saying. And besides that, I am not the one who needs to be doing all the application for them. That is the job of the Holy Spirit. My job is to teach them what it means.

Jeff Hathaway — a pastor and Ezzo supporter — used to come in here from time to time to argue with us about spanking. Jeff and I disagreed sharply about this subject of biblical application awhile back. Jeff stated:

< < I believe that it is incumbant upon Pastors when The
Bible does not give any specifics to 1. Glean the Biblical
principles on the given subject, and 2. To develop a good
comprehensive method for applying those principles. >>

My response was:

< < I disagree vehemently. I believe this is the exact
problem with the Ezzos and with many others. They have
derived erroneous principles, and even if the principles
are not erroneous, they then set about to misapply them. I
believe it is presumptious and arrogant for a pastor to
take such an extensive role in application. The pastor's
job is to teach the word as clearly and carefully as
possible, and while some application may be appropriate --
I believe it is much better to let the Holy Spirit do the
lion's share of the application in the hearts of the
listeners.

<< This whole 'comprehensive methods' approach goes to the
heart of my problem with Ezzo. It tends strongly toward
legalism and a formula-driven religion, rather than the
dynamic, relationship-orientation of grace. Well -- there
is MUCH more I would like to say about this -- but I don't
like long posts. >>

I usually refuse to even discuss application with anyone until I am assured that they understand the basic meaning of the text in the first place. The Holy Spirit may lead different Christians to apply passages in different ways. There are going to be many applications that are the same, of course, but not all. And it would be presumptious for me to attempt to force MY personal applications on others, unless I am convinced that this is an “across the board” application, so to speak.

All this being said, surely we can understand the logic that — if I have MISinterpreted a passage in the first place, the odds are going to be pretty high that whatever application I make will be erroneous, as well. Accurate interpretation MUST be the basis for any accurate application.

And here, once again, we face the problem of Ezzo’s faulty hermeneutic. He has twisted so many scriptures that his “applications” are consistently off-base. A faulty hermeneutic leads to faulty interpretations, which lead to false doctrines, which lead to erroneous applications, which lead to bondage, judgmentalism, elitism, extremism, and error after error after error. It all begins with hermeneutics.

#1 = Interpret LITERALLY.
#2 = Understand the HISTORICAL-CULTURAL background.
#3 = Analyze the GRAMMATICAL structure.
#4 = Use SYNTHESIS [Compare scripture with scripture].
#5 = THEN you can APPLY the passage!

============================================

HERMENEUTICS #7

As valuable as these five principles are — they are useless without the illuminating ministry of the Holy Spirit:

1 COR. 2:12-16: “We have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom, but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man’s judgment: ‘For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him?’ [Is. 40:13]. But we have the mind of Christ.”

In this passage Paul describes the Holy Spirit’s ministry of ILLUMINATION. This is NOT revelation; that was given only to the chosen apostles and prophets that formed the foundation of the church. But illumination is a ministry to every true believer. It is not new scripture, nor is it a mystical power to perfectly understand everything in the written word. But it is a ministry of the Spirit that helps the diligent seeker of truth as he searches the scripture.

Anyone can hear the facts, study other people’s teaching, and gain something of an intellectual understanding about the meaning of Scripture. But apart from the Holy Spirit, the Bible will utterly fail to penetrate and transform the human heart. With the Spirit of God comes illumination — true understanding of what has been written. Every believer has the Holy Spirit, the One who inspired the writers of Scripture, and without His illuminating ministry to us, the truth of Scripture could not penetrate our hearts and minds.

The Holy Spirit indwells us, and helps us understand the written word. However — this is NOT to say that the illuminating ministry of the Holy Spirit REPLACES diligent study of the word. Rather — they work together. As we carefully and thoroughly explore the Scripture, the Holy Spirit uses whatever tools we acquire, whatever godly wisdom we expose ourselves to, as the means to illumine our hearts. Appealing to Scripture apart from complete dependence on the Holy Spirit is presumption; but, to expect the Holy Spirit to teach us APART from diligent study of the Scripture is fanaticism — it is dangerous — and it is not biblical.

=================================================

HERMENEUTICS #8

There are more principles of interpretation that we could cover, but I can’t do this forever. At the end of this series of posts, I will give a list of good books that you can study for more, and more indepth, explanations. However — there is one more major positive point that needs to be stressed — and that is CONTEXT.

There is a saying in the world of real estate that goes something like this: The three most important things to consider are — first, LOCATION; second, LOCATION; and third, LOCATION. Bible study should have a similar saying: The three most important things to consider are CONTEXT, CONTEXT, and CONTEXT.

The fifth principle — SYNTHESIS — dealt with this issue somewhat. We should compare scripture with scripture in order not to make the mistake of interpreting one passage in contradiction to the plain meaning of another one. This is a very broad application of the principle of CONTEXT, but there is more to understand about this.

You can get all the other elements right in your study of a particular passage, but if you ignore or distort the context, you are likely to STILL misinterpret, and you are almost SURE to misapply, the passage. Understanding the context begins in the very sentence you are studying, and it works its way outward in ever-widening concentric circles.

What is the IMMEDIATE context? What is being discussed in the sentence before, and the sentence after, the one you are looking at? Are these sentences connected, or does the one you are studying stand alone apart from the others? What about the paragraph in which the sentence is found? What about the LARGER context — the chapter, the letter, the book? What about OTHER books?

Who is speaking, to whom is he speaking, and what is he speaking about? For example, there is a very great difference among the following contexts: Moses speaking to the Israelites at Mt. Sinai, Jesus speaking to the Pharisees in Jerusalem, Peter speaking to the Jerusalem council in ACTS 15, and Paul speaking at Mars Hill in Athens. Each of these situations provides CONTEXT for what is being said.

What is the subject under discussion? What else has this writer said about this subject? Who else has had something to say about it elsewhere in the Bible [Remember the analogy of scripture.]? What are the issues, the conflicts, the events that are related to the passage? Who are the people involved, and who else is referred to besides them? All of these questions help us focus on the CONTEXT of the passage under consideration, and this is perhaps the most crucial principle of all, as it ties together and makes sense of all the other principles we have discussed.

CONTEXT makes all the difference between a solid, wise application of a passage, and a twisting of the passage to make it seem to support something it really does not support. Remember my earlier example — the claim that the Bible teaches that there is no god. There are a couple of sentences that could be pulled out of their context to support this claim — sentences that say, “There is no god.” But a look at the context will reveal an entirely different meaning — “The FOOL has said in his heart, ‘There is no god.’”

Here is a good warning to remember when reading or listening to those attempting to use the scripture to support their claims:

A TEXT apart from its CONTEXT is usually used as a PRETEXT!

===========================================

HERMENEUTICS #9 — What NOT to do.

2 TIMOTHY 2:15: “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.”

This passage reminds us that “accurately handling” the word takes diligence and care. We must treat the word correctly if we are to get from it what God intended. Now that we have covered the major principles of sound interpretation, I am going to discuss several “don’t’s” — errors to avoid as we study the scripture.

First — NEVER make your point at the price of the proper interpretation.

It is easy, and tempting, for a Bible teacher or pastor to sneak a foreign meaning into a text in order to get a desired response. Remembering that there is usually only one proper interpretation of a given passage, it should be a warning when a teacher rarely discusses that proper interpretation, but seems so eager to apply the passage in a way that does not really relate to that primary meaning.

Watch out for teachers who use scriptures out of their proper context, and change their meanings, in order to support their arguments. What they are doing is making their points at the price of the proper interpretation. I think Ezzo’s “use” of the passage about Jesus crying out on the cross to support letting babies cry is one of the most egregious examples of this!

Let me try another example: Many young people today are having their bodies “pierced” in a lot of places! And some of them are suffering some pretty unhealthy side-effects of this. In fact, some people are warning about the future consequences of some of these piercings. Now — let us say that I am against any and all body-piercing, including even pierced ears. Let us say that I am so adamantly against this that I want to preach against it from the pulpit. So I try tofind a scripture that I can use to support my position.

Remember — I have already decided what to preach. I have already reached my conclusion. Now all I need is to find a passage that can support me. I look for it, and cannot find one that speaks directly to the issue I want to preach about. Were I to treat the scriptures as so many are doing today, that would not stop me at all! All I have to do is find a passage — any passage — that I can twist to make it appear tosupport me, even though, in context, it says no such thing.

And sure enough — I find one: Phil. 3:2 [NIV] “Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh.” See how I can do it? I can preach that piercing of the ears is mutilation of the flesh, and then I can point to this passage for support. “See — even Paul warns against those who would mutilateyour flesh.” But — as a discerning, diligent, and careful student of the word of God, you should look up that verse, and seek to understand it in its original context.

Were you to do so, you would find that Paul is NOT talking about ear-piercing, or ANY kind of body-piercing, but about CIRCUMCISION. He is warning these Philippian Christians to beware of the Judaizer, those who were preaching Christian circumcision as a moral and religious duty.

Now — how should you react to ME were I to do this? Shouldn’t you at least be very wary of my teaching? Shouldn’t you at least be very cautious about accepting what I say without checking it out? And –as in the case of Ezzo — what if it were HABITUAL for me to do this? What should you do then? Well — the NT spells it out pretty clearly how we should respond to a teacher who does this. And I’ll just bet that most of you know what it says to do, even though many Christians refuse to do it.

Beware of any teacher of the word of God who has a habit of using scriptures out of context, changing their intended meaning, to make them appear to support his teachings. If he can’t find plain scriptures that plainly support what he is teaching, then maybe there aren’t any.

#1 = Don’t make your point at the price of the proper interpretation.

===============================================

HERMENEUTICS #10 — What NOT to do:

#1 = NEVER make your point at the price of the proper interpretation.

Second — NEVER rely on a superficial or shallow “examination” of a text.

Do NOT try to get by without real study. Accurate Bible study is hard work. It cannot be done by flipping through quickly and looking for messages wherever our eyes happen to settle [BTW -- that is actually an occultic technique]. Nor is understanding the Bible a matter of personal opinion apart from actual EVIDENCE ["Well, to ME this passage means..."].

Accurate interpretation requires diligence. As I have already said, sometimes the correct meaning of a text will be discovered by studying the cultural background — sometimes from the grammar, and sometimes from comparisons with other scriptures. We cannot expect to get by with the haphazard ad-libbing that passes for Bible teaching in much of the church today.

1 TIM. 5:17 says that “double honor” is to be given to those who labor in the word and in doctrine. God has given teachers as a gift to the church because correctly instructing people in the Scriptures requires people who are committed to persistent, conscientious labor in studying and learning. I am sure all of you know some who are actually proud of their lack of learning, and who are contemptuous of those who strive to better their knowledge and abilities in language, theology, and doctrine. They try to appear super-spiritual and superior to those who have worked long and hard in this area.

I have heard some claim that they can know the Bible just fine completely apart from any outside help. They don’t need to read any of “man’s wisdom”; they don’t need any study aids, or any language helps. They are spiritual enough to “get it” without all that help. And if you question their “take” on a passage, based on solid linguistic, or historical, or contextual grounds, they will denigrate you as “all puffed up with knowledge,” or some such insult.

To some folks this all sounds quite spiritual. But is it really the way of wisdom? Think back through the history of the church. The overwhelming majority of the mighty teachers and leaders in the church have been educated persons. And the overwhelming majority of the cults and aberrant groups have been characterized by their lack of scholarship and learning. This is not meant to denigrate those who are NOT educated; but it IS meant to rebuke the attitude that godly, learned people who have dedicated their lives to the study of the scripture are somehow less spiritual than those who just fly by the seat of their pants!

Do we really have the right to bypass all the godly learning of the church? Although the claim that one is able to bypass serious study and go right to the word sounds very spiritual to some, to me it is nothing more than egotism and stupidity. It is claiming a special ability that those of us who have dedicated our lives to learning just don’t have.

I confess that I am not specially gifted to be able to figure out everything in the Bible without help — without the untiring, godly, scholarship of great men and women of the past and of today. And I thank God for those who have become expert in history, or in linguistics, or in Greek, or in grammar [Hooray for Grammarians!! ] — and who have used those abilities to help us further our understanding of the Scripture.

This claim is also an indication that the one making it has confused INSPIRATION with ILLUMINATION. The Spirit’s illuminating ministry is NOT designed to reveal NEW truth concerning matters unknown — rather, it is designed to help us understand what is already revealed in the written word of God.

This second “don’t” of hermeneutics is designed to guard against the free-for-all that results from accepting any and every opinion without even the burden of evidence. It protects us from our own, and others’, biases, based on shallow study and shallow thinking. It is the difference between the whimsical and sometimes ridiculous interpretations of those who are merely reacting emotionally and subjectively to a passage, and the solid, grounded reasoning of those who have used the tools that godly men have learned and passed on to the rest of us to help us discover the intended meaning of the text.

We should be greatly disturbed by this shallow, superficial approach to Bible study and teaching. Too many preachers and teachers are standing before Christians and presuming to teach them the word of God with little or no preparation at all. Many of them seem to be inventing their doctrine as they go along!

Let me give you an example of this fallacy. I once heard of a man who claimed that he could preach a message from any verse in the Bible without having to study it, or even look at it. He was asked topreach from the following text: “These eight did Milcah bear.” [You can see from the written statement that Milcah is a person's name. But you must do as this man did, and simply HEAR the sentence, with no clue or help, as he claimed he could preach without that help.]

The man proceeded to preach a three-point sermonette based on what he heard. His three points were:

1) It takes courage to milk a bear. 2) It takes cooperation to milk a bear. 3) It takes caution to milk a bear.

He then tried to apply these “points” in some sort of spiritual way. Now — would you consider this to be a spiritual and godly way to preach? I would hope that everyone in here would reject such a notion. But, alas, there are many who do seem to believe in this kind of “preaching”.

If you will look up the verse that this sentence is found in — GENESIS 22:23 — you will discover that Milcah was the sister-in-law ofAbraham, and that this passage is simply saying that she had eight children! So — not only was this man making a fool out of himself in his arrogance, but more importantly, he was twisting the word of God in his attempt to look super-spiritual, and he was robbing those who were listening to him of the right to hear the truth from the word of God.

#1 = NEVER make your point at the price of the proper interpretation.
#2 = NEVER rely on superficial or shallow study.

============================================

HERMENEUTICS #11 — What NOT to do:

#1 = NEVER make your point at the price of the proper interpretation.
#2 = NEVER try to get by on superficial study.

Third — Avoid the tendency to “spiritualize” or “allegorize” a passage. Never do this — UNLESS the text itself calls for it.

This is the flip-side of the first principle of sound hermeneutics — interpret LITERALLY. Many people use the Scripture as we would a book of fables — not really focussing on the real facts and plain statements, but using it as a “morality tale” or an “allegory” to teach whatever points they have already determined to put across. Instead of seeking the meaning of the biblical material, they make it an allegory or a parable to support their pre-determined position — whether it actually has anything tosay about that or not.

There is, of course, a place for allegories, parables, and illustrations — but the careful student of the Bible does not FORCE the text into that pattern; rather, he lets the text determine how it is to be taken — literally or figuratively. And he does not create allegories by twisting the literal meaning to make it fit. Finally — he does not force an alternative meaning on a text to the detriment of the real meaning [See "Don't" #1].

Let me give you an example of a passage that clearly dictates an illustrative approach. In GALATIANS, Paul argues forcefully and repeatedly that the Christian is not subject to the law of Moses, and that those who are trying to get these Galatian Christians to submit to that law are “spying on their freedom,” “bewitching” them, causing them to “fall from grace,” “hindering” their obedience to the truth, and causing them to be in “slavery” after having been given their liberty by Christ. In chapter four, Paul uses an “allegory” or “illustration” from a well-known OT situation — the attempt by Abraham and Sarah to help God out by producing a son by means of Hagar, Sarah’s servant.

Beginning in GAL. 4:21: “Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? For it is written that Abraham had two sons — the one by the slave woman [Hagar] and the other by the free woman [Sarah]. His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way [AHEM!]; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of promise. These things may be taken figuratively [KJV = "which things are an allegory"], for the women represent two covenants.

“The one covenant is from Mount Sinai [What covenant is that? The law of Moses, epitomized by the Ten Commandments -- see EXODUS 19-24.] and it bears children who are to be slaves [Here he clearly refers to being under the law of Sinai as being in slavery.]: This is Hagar. Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia [where that old law was ratified] and she corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem [the center of OT Judaism], because she is in slavery with her children [the Jews under that law].

“But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother [If Hagar represents the earthly Jerusalem, the law, and slavery -- then Sarah represents the heavenly Jerusalem, the gospel, and freedom. Notice the obvious contrast.]. For it is written: Be glad, O barren woman, who bears no children; break forth and cry aloud, you who have no labor pains; because more are the children of the desolate woman than of her who has a husband.

“Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise [unlike those under the law, who were children of slavery]. At that time the son born in the ordinary way [Ishmael] persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit [Isaac]. It is the same now [Jews were persecuting Christians at the time].

“But what does the Scripture say? ‘Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son.’ Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slavewoman, but of the free woman.”

Now — that was a long example — but it is a good example of the correct use of allegory and symbolism. Paul used a literal OT event to explain a NT truth. But that NT truth is a literal truth, explained in literal language. The symbols represent something real that God has revealed in many other passages, as well — not some fancied idea formed in the mind of a preacher.

#1 = NEVER make your point at the price of the proper interpretation.
#2 = NEVER rely on superficial or shallow study.
#3 = NEVER allegorize or spiritualize unless the text itself calls for it.

==============================================

HERMENEUTICS #12 — Resources for further study:

If anyone is interested in investigating this further, here are some good resources for studying hermeneutics and learning how to interpret the Bible accurately:

*How to Read the Bible for All It’s Worth* — by Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart. Zondervan, 1982.

*Living by the Book* — by Howard Hendricks and William Hendricks. Moody Press, 1991.

*Guide to Understanding Your Bible* — by Josh McDowell. Here’s Life Pub., 1982.

*Expository Hermeneutics: An Introduction* — by Elliot Johnson [the best of the more recent seminary textbooks]. Zondervan, 1990.

*Understanding and Applying the Bible* — by J. Robertson McQuilken. Moody Press, 1992.

*Handbook for Bible Study* — by Grant Osborne and Stephen Woodward. Baker Book House, 1979.

*Basic Bible Interpretation* — by Roy Zuck. Victor Books, 1991.

*Joy of Discovery in Bible Study* — by Oletta Wald. Augsburg Publishing House, 1975. [This was the book we studied in preaching class in seminary way back in the 70s. It is a good instructional manual in inductive study.]

*Protestant Biblical Interpretation* — by Bernard Ramm. Baker Book House, 1970. [This was the standard hermeneutics textbook back in my day.]

One final comment. In response to someone’s questions about interpretation, I suggested two things: first — call Talbot Seminary, from which Gary Ezzo was graduated, and ask about what it teaches; second — call Grace Community Church, where Ezzo served on staff for ten years, and ask about its approach. The senior pastor at Grace — back when Ezzo was there, and still today — is John MacArthur. Many of the comments I wrote in the previous posts are adaptations of the written statements of Dr. MacArthur himself.

Nothing I have said in all these posts is considered unusual, or out of the ordinary in the least. These are the standard tools of interpretation that are taught at the very seminary where Gary Ezzo received his degree, and that are advocated by his own former senior pastor. And Gary Ezzo’s blatant violations of these principles are among the problems that led Grace Church to: first, attempt to bring correction to Ezzo; second, because Ezzo refused correction, publicly disassociate itself with him and disavow his teachings.

===============================================

___________

3 Comments »

Ezzo Week 2010: Remembering Metochoi

Posted by TulipGirl | Under GFI / Ezzo / Babywise Friday Jul 16, 2010

Some of you may have met Metochoi before online. He passed away this past year. His dry wit and wisdom had a great impact on me.

I can’t say it any better than katiekind:

“I met ‘Metochoi’ on a message board about the controversial Ezzo parenting curriculum. He was a pastor of a little church in Nowhere, Texas whose church had been torn up by adherents to the curriculum. He was mad. A history of countering legalistic Christian fads, a mind primed with logic and a personality unafraid to laugh at bullies equipped him to do battle. Mostly he joined the battle because, as he used to sign his posts, “I love moms and babies”. At heart, Mike was a pastor AND a dad. He loved his wife and he understood the connection she experienced with her babies was a sacred and God-given thing – not a challenge to him and their relationship as Ezzo teaches.

Due to ill health, he labored mostly in obscurity. But as the internet age dawned, people who could not attend his little Baptist church or attend the logic classes he taught at the local college began to be touched by Mike’s teaching abilities as he took part in internet conversations.

Here is my friend Rebecca’s tribute.

Mike touched our lives in a similar way, and I will always be grateful.”

While Metochoi had great influence in many areas, two of writings particularly impacted me and I’ll be posting them to make sure they stay available for future reference. These aren’t short and easy reads, but well worth your time.

Metochoi’s Short Course in Hermeneutics
Metochoi’s Short Course in Logic
Metochoi’s Postings at Parent’s Place

___________

Post updated: A friend messaged me, “And just fyi, it’s an o in the middle, not an a. I remember him once telling someone that, so thought you would want to know. It’s a Greek word that means “partakers.” As in Hebrews, “partakers of a heavenly calling.” Hope this doesn’t offend, but it kind of reminds me of him, anyway. He frequently corrected my spelling and grammar offline.”

So, to honor Metochoi, I’ve corrected how I misspelled his moniker throughout this post. *blush*

___________

2 Comments »

Ezzo Week 2010: A Christian Worldview?

Posted by TulipGirl | Under GFI / Ezzo / Babywise Thursday Jul 15, 2010

In 1995 our family was first introduced to the Ezzo parenting materials. As a Christian who wanted to live in a way that took the Bible seriously, I evaluated all ideas in light of the question, “Does this reflect a Biblical Christian worldview?”

We were first introduced to the Preparation for Parenting materials by a few Christian friends, and then classes were promoted at our church. (Prep was the forerunner to Babywise, a book which summarized the program stripped it of religious language.) When I heard some of the basic ideas, the terms being used, and the Bible verses cited, Prep seemed to align with my Christian worldview question.

Through the years I came to see that while I valued Biblical teaching, when I was going through Prep I was not really looking closely at what was being taught and comparing it with the Bible. This seems to be a pretty common experience for those of us who were exposed to the Ezzo parenting ideas in the ‘90s, though some people were voicing concerns about the Biblical and theological content.

In the beginning, Gary and Anne Marie Ezzo focused on marketing their materials to Christian families. Their non-religious book, Babywise, has been promoted to Christians as a tool to build bridges to proselytize neighbors — however it seems at this point that has been supplanted by sales goals. Target markets have grown to include both the non-religious and in recent years a significant LDS population. (I find the LDS connection interesting because in the mid-90s one of my LDS friends told me Babywise ideas would never be something promoted by her church.)

In contrast to those early years, my questions for evaluating ideas have shifted. I now ask myself “Does this reflect the Gospel in our relationships? Does this point us to our dependence upon the grace of God in each moment of each day? Does this reflect God’s great story of redemption?”

Gary Ezzo puts great emphasis on parents choosing a “parenting philosophy.” I believe the philosophy in the Ezzo materials leads to moralism in family life, rather than dependence upon the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

When I use the word “Gospel” it represents a specific group of beliefs. The associations you have with that term may be quite different so I believe it is very important to clarify.

It is hard for me to be succinct when it comes to the Gospel, so I’m going to borrow a quote a friend of mine shared:

“On the cross Christ paid the debt for every selfish desire, thought, word, or deed to which you will ever give yourself. You no longer have to be afraid to own up to your selfishness. You do not have to whitewash your thoughts and motives. You do not have to cover your sin by blaming others or by self-atoning logic. You do not have to give yourself to acts of penance (self-atonement) that make you feel better about yourself. You do not have to search for biblical passages that will give ease to your conscience.

No, your debt has been fully paid. Your punishment has been borne by Another. There is One who has taken your place and been condemned instead of you.

Paul says, ‘He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross’ (Colossians 2:13b-14). As God’s child, you have been forgiven for every act of self-focused independence and rebellion.”
– Paul David Tripp

Maybe that wasn’t as succinct as I hoped. . .

“The ‘gospel’ is the good news that through Christ the power of God’s kingdom has entered history to renew the whole world. When we believe and rely on Jesus’ work and record (rather than ours) for our relationship to God, that kingdom power comes upon us and begins to work through us.”
–Tim Keller

Not long ago I was rocking babies in the nursery and so I missed a sermon about forgiveness which drew from the parable of the unforgiving servant. My children relayed it to me in such detail that I know they really grasped the meaning – we have been forgiven a debt of such sin and guilt that is more than we can even imagine. As we are reminded in the above quote, the debt has been completely paid by Christ. We don’t have to whitewash or excuse or self-atone for our sins. Christ has done it all.

How can we — we who have been forgiven so very much — fail to convey that forgiveness to our children? How can we point to any actions of ours or theirs to cover their sins? Why do we hesitate to tell our children the Good News? “Your punishment has been borne by Another. There is One who has taken your place and been condemned instead of you. . . . As God’s child, you have been forgiven for every act of self-focused independence and rebellion.”

The Gospel is so simple. So profound.

As Gary and Anne Marie Ezzo are professing Christians, I assume they affirm this Gospel of immeasurable grace and forgiveness which is from Christ alone.

However, instead of helping parents communicate to their own children the joy of the Gospel and their need of Christ daily, the Ezzo parenting materials communicate a religious moralism.

We can see an emphasis on this moralism quite overtly in Growing Kids God’s Way, Preparation for Parenting and the religiously oriented curriculum. It is still there, but a little more subtle in Babywise and other secular materials. Infant feeding and sleeping is presented as a “moral” issue – and if a parent “trains” their infant, not only will there be the much-touted reward of sleeping through the night, but also an infant who is prepared to be an moral toddler. Similarly, being consistent and keeping “the funnel” narrow in toddlerhood will result in a moral child. Happy, obedient children are the promised reward of raising children morally. How could this be a bad thing?

“We must not suppose that if we succeeded in making everyone nice we should have saved their souls. A world of nice people, content in their own niceness, looking no further, turned away from God, would be just as desperately in need of salvation as a miserable world.” — C.S. Lewis

It is not bad per se, to have a good child – yet it can be devastating when it leads to a religious moralism that denies the need for Christ for us as parents as well as for our children.

To expound a little more on moralism, which we can see both in religious and non-religious communities:

“Moralism is the view that you are acceptable (to God, the world, others, yourself) through your attainments. (Moralists do not have to be religious, but often are.) When they are, their religion if pretty conservative and filled with rules. Sometimes moralists have views of God as very holy and just. This view will lead either to a) self-hatred (because you can’t live up to the standards), or b) self-inflation (because you think you have lived up to the standards). It is ironic to realize that inferiority and superiority complexes have the very same root. Whether the moralist ends up smug and superior or crushed and guilty just depends on how high the standards are and on a person’s natural advantages (such as family, intelligence, looks, willpower). Moralistic people can be deeply religious–but there is no transforming joy or power.

…

“But though religious persons may be extremely penitent and sorry for their sins, they see sins as simply the failure to live up to standards by which they are saving themselves. They do not see sin as the deeper self-righteousness and self-centeredness through which they are trying to live lives independent of God. So when they go to Jesus for forgiveness, they only as a way to “cover over the gaps” in their project of self-salvation. And when people say, “I know God is forgiving, but I cannot forgive myself”, they mean that they reject God’s grace and insist that they be worthy of his favor. So even religious people with “low self esteem” are really in their funk because they will not see the depth of sin. They see it only as rules breaking, not as rebellion and self-salvation. ”

– Tim Keller

This religious moralism is what I found in the Ezzo parenting philosophy — perhaps it was even one of the things that appealed to me in these materials. Other Christian parents have told me that they, too, found that as they implemented the Ezzo ideas in their homes they drifted towards moralism and away from the Gospel.

We as parents need to recognize that yes, we will sin in our family relastionships. Yes, we WILL sin. Jesus already bore the punishment for that sin. We need Jesus every day. We need God’s grace to nurture and raise our children.

Our children need for us to come alongside them when they sin, acknowledge that yes, they sinned. Yes, they WILL sin. Jesus already bore the punishment for that sin. They need Jesus every day. They need God’s grace to obey.

In short I take serious theological and Biblical issue with the philosophy espoused by the Ezzo parenting materials because it fails to apply the heart of the Gospel in our parenting relationships.

It would give me such great joy for Gary and Anne Marie Ezzo to reflect on the impact of the Gospel in parenting and greatly change their materials from a moralistic teaching to reflect a Gospel-centered approach to parenting.

I am a very flawed, imperfect parent. Honestly, I’m thankful for that because it keeps me very dependent upon the Gospel each day.

This is my daily prayer as a mother,

“Lord, remind me of the truth of the Gospel. Remind me of Christ’s atonement and how great a debt I have been forgiven. Keep me dependent upon You. Help me in each moment to point my children to the truth of the Gospel. Help us understand that the sin in our lives today has already been atoned for on the cross. Help me and my boys to turn to you in repentance each day, relying upon You alone in all things. Amen.”

__________________

14 Comments »

Evaluating Ezzo’s Arguments: A Short Course in Logic

Posted by TulipGirl | Under GFI / Ezzo / Babywise Thursday Jul 15, 2010

This is a LONG post consisting of 18 short lessons in evaluating arguments, using examples drawn from Gary Ezzo and his teachings. These were originally written by Metochoi a “pastor in Nowhere, Texas” who always signed his posts “I love moms and babies.” There were written help people evaluate the logic used in Ezzo’s arguments — and his critics’ arguments, as well.

———————————————

LOGIC #1 — INTRODUCTION

One of the most important skills you can develop, if you really care about truth, is the ability to THINK more critically. Every normal human thinks — but not everyone thinks “critically.” Thinking critically is a skill, just as swimming, calligraphy, and dancing are skills. And — like any other skill, critical thinking can be taught, it can be learned, and it can be improved with practice.

That last point is crucial. I can tell you everything there is to know about critical thinking and evaluation of arguments, but if you don’t work at putting these ideas into practice, you will not learn them. Like so many other things in life — the skill grows and gets stronger the more it is put to use.

The most effective way to develop your critical thinking skills is to put them to use in REAL DISCUSSIONS. This discussion, for example, has helped me work on my reasoning skills — and I am sure that is true for many of you.

The first thing we need to establish as we discuss how to evaluate arguments is the meaning of CRITICAL THINKING. It does NOT mean finding fault with something or looking for a fight. Here are a few characteristics of a “critical thinker”:

——————————————-

1) He is open to learning something new.

2) He does not argue about something when he knows nothing about it.

3) He knows when he needs more information about something — and he is willing to work to find that information.

4) He knows the difference between a conclusion that MIGHT be true and one that MUST be true.

5) He knows that people have different ideas about the meanings of words.

6) He tries to avoid common mistakes in his own reasoning.

7) He questions everything that does not make sense to him.

He tries to separate emotional thinking from logical thinking.

9) He works to build up his vocabulary so that he can understand what other people are saying and so that he can make his own ideas clear to other people.

10) He is willing to do the work involved in evaluating claims, rather than accepting or rejecting them blindly.

——————————————-

There are many more sound ideas we could include, but this gives us a good beginning as we seek to become critical thinkers. Think about the above characteristics in relation to this discussion. No need to apply them to OTHERS. What about YOU? Work through each one and ask yourself what YOU are doing with regard to Ezzo’s claims — AND with regard to the claims of those who disagree with Ezzo.

There are very few people who cannot learn to think more clearly and critically. Like anything worthwhile, it takes hard work. Many people are not accustomed to working HARD at their thinking, and it is uncomfortable at first. However — the more you work at it, the better you will become. You CAN learn to think BETTER than you do now.

One last thing to ponder: As you practice critical thinking skills, you will find yourself becoming CONFUSED or UNSURE about some things that you had PREVIOUSLY assumed to be true, and also about things you had previously rejected as false. This is a GOOD sign that you are beginning to think for yourself, but it frightens some people who are accustomed to the security of being told what to think.

Now look — I know that some of you are going to be left cold and bored by all this logical discussion. If that is the case, then by all means — just ignore this thread. But others have been asking for me to repost these lessons, so — well — here dey are!

Next = Some preliminary definitions

============================================

LOGIC #2 — SOME PRELIMINARY DEFINITIONS

Let’s lay some groundwork for our discussion. Every good “argument” makes clear all of its foundational definitions. Many people come to discussions with different definitions, and so they waste a lot of time arguing PAST each other because of the confusion caused by this difference. In this post I will provide a few foundational definitions and make a few initial observations.

* DISCUSSION = two or more people talking about something. They may or may not be disagreeing. You and I can discuss some of Ezzo’s teachings without disagreeing with each other.

* DISAGREEMENT = a DISCUSSION in which both parties think the other one is wrong about something. They are not necessarily trying to convince each other, but they do disagree. I can believe that you are wrong
about something without bothering to tell you why.

* ARGUMENT = a DISAGREEMENT in which BOTH parties are attempting to CONVINCE each other of their error. Contrary to the belief of many Christians — there is absolutely nothing wrong or unspiritual with this kind of “argument.” Jesus, Paul, Peter, Moses — virtually EVERYONE in the Bible — engaged in this kind of argument.

So has virtually every theologian and leader in the history of the church. And so, of course, does Gary Ezzo. For us to ARGUE in here is perfectly appropriate — and necessary — if we are to have any hope at arriving at truth.

There is another kind of “argument” that we will discuss later on. This other kind of argument involves a line of reasoning, supported by evidence, in which a person is attempting to CONVINCE others of the truth or falsity of something, and/or PERSUADE them to take a certain course of action. Look back at my statement above that you are reading MY argument right now; in that statement, I was using THIS definition. More on this later on.

* FIGHT [with WORDS, of course] = an ARGUMENT in which one or more of the parties have lost some control of their emotions. There have been some posters in here from time to time who have shown that they are incapable of arguing without fighting. Most of them don’t last very long before flying out of here in a snit.

Now — with these definitions, I hope you can see that each category above is actually a subset of the preceding category. IOW — every FIGHT is a kind of argument, but not every argument is a fight; every ARGUMENT is a kind of disagreement, but not every disagreement is an argument; and every DISAGREEMENT is a kind of discussion, but not every discussion is a disagreement.

It is important for us all to attempt to keep this “discussion” list at the level of discussion, disagreement, and argument — without fighting. Learning to think more clearly and critically actually enables a person to keep a cooler head — even in the face of great emotion — and to do a better job of evaluating arguments. OTOH — a
person who shows a marked tendency to keep pushing the discussion to the level of a fight is showing his lack of thinking ability AND his lack of concern for fairness, accuracy, and truth.

Next = When is it stupid to argue?

========================================

LOGIC #3 — WHEN IS IT STUPID TO ARGUE?

What is an “argument”? It is a disagreement in which both parties are attempting to convince the other that he [the other party] is wrong. In general, there is no good reason to argue when the thing we are arguing about is a matter of record. If there is a mutually accepted reliable source of information, and if that information is clear and conclusive, then it is “stupid” to argue.

This, of course, hasn’t kept people from arguing about myriads of things of this nature. Young people are particularly prone to this kind of argumentation. I have heard teenage boys argue back and forth endlessly concerning sports statistics, when all they had to do was LOOK THEM UP! Yeah, I know — we older folks do the same thing!

For example — what is the point of an argument like the following?

* Gary: Wayne Gretsky’s last year was really poor, wasn’t it? I mean — compared to his previous years?

* Bill: Are you crazy? Gretsky was the greatest player in the history of hockey!

* Gary: I agree. But after all his great years, his LAST year was very disappointing.

* Bill: No, it wasn’t! He was the best scorer and passer in the league.

This argument is senseless. Whether or not Wayne Gretsky’s last year was up to the standards of his previous years is a matter of public record. We can LOOK IT UP and FIND OUT the truth. No matter WHO convinces WHOM in this argument — the facts will not change. To argue about the ESTABLISHED FACTS is stupid.

However — the public record must be trustworthy. For example — here is another argument:

Chelsea: Look what this history book says. The constitution was ratified in 1978! Wow! I thought it was much older than that!

Marissa: You Cork-brain! Of course it is older than that! It was ratified in 1787!

Chelsea: No, look here. See? It clearly says 1978.

Marissa: That’s a misprint, you simple-headed gherkin! It was 1787.

Chelsea: You can’t tell me that a book like this would be wrong, with all the editors and proofreaders it has.

In this case, Chelsea has found a public record that Marissa says is wrong. Notice that Chelsea gives a pretty good reason for believing the book, while Marissa gives no reason at all for her position. Is Chelsea then right and Marissa wrong? Have I confused you now?

Here’s how to reconcile the two scenarios above. In the first one, we are assuming [based on evidence] that the public record is ACCURATE. In the second one — the record is FAULTY. In BOTH cases — if we have any question, we can check the record against many other sources.

How do we apply this to logic and to the question of when it is stupid to argue? If we believe the issue is a matter of public record, then we can look it up rather than argue about it. If we can trust the record, the matter is settled. That is — if we agree that the answer is recorded somewhere — AND we believe that that record is accurate — there is no reason to argue. OTOH — if we think the record may be in error — then we can argue about the ACCURACY of the record — until and unless we can find other records that we DO trust.

What I want you to take from this lesson — besides the fact that Chelsea is a cork-brain — is that if something is a matter of record, then it is stupid to argue about it — UNLESS you can demonstrate that that public record is FAULTY. But — in BOTH cases above, there are MANY, MANY accurate sources that all agree with each other. NEITHER fact is really in question.

Finally — in relation to our discussion in here: What would you think of the thinking skills and/or honesty of someone who would stubbornly argue with a RECORDED FACT [as long as we can demonstrate its accuracy], simply because that fact negates something that person has chosen to believe?

Think about all of Ezzo’s quotes that we have provided in here over the years, only to see many of his defenders deny that Ezzo ever said such things. We have provided the PUBLIC RECORD — WORD-FOR-WORD — in his OWN words — again and again and again — and yet some of them STILL will not accept that evidence.

Is that an indication of a lack of thinking skills, or is it an indication of a refusal to accept the truth simply because it differs from what one WANTS to believe? Is it STUPID to argue against the written record of what Ezzo said? Of course, it is. Now — arguing about just what he MEANT by what he said — that’s not necessarily stupid!

=============================================

LOGIC #4 — THREE KINDS OF DISAGREEMENTS

In debate or discussion, there are three kinds of disagreement — apparent, verbal, and real.

1) An APPARENT disagreement occurs when two statements reflect different feelings or opinions, not facts or evidence. For example:

* Kung-fu-tsu says: I think Latin is hard.

* Boniface says: I think it is easy.

So — is Latin hard or easy? We cannot tell from these two statements, because they are both self-reports — merely statements of the boys’ feelings or opinions, without evidence. There is NOT a true disagreement here, because both statements can be taken as true without contradiction. It is a difference of opinion, but not a logical contradiction. Here is another example:

* Rene says: Brussels sprouts are delicious.

* Theresa says: No, they are awful.

Both of these statements are true — they only “appear” to disagree. Brussels sprouts are delicious to Rene and awful to Theresa. We have here an *apparent* disagreement, not a real one.

Now — suppose the following statements have been made:

* Gottfried says: I think the Rams will win the Super Bowl.

* Ludovico says: I don’t think so.

These two statements — without any supporting evidence — constitute an *apparent* disagreement. They are both self-reports, and as such, unprovable and undisprovable. And many Christians carry on their discussions on this level. It amounts to: What I feel or think about something is what is true.

This is very difficult to overcome when trying to teach or discuss doctrine — especially when attempting to show that someone’s teaching is a false doctrine. Many people are, unfortunately, very hard to convince, because they are not looking at evidence, but at their own opinions and feelings.

2) A VERBAL disagreement occurs when different definitions are used for the same term. This does not necessarily mean that there is a true contradiction. For example:

* Gary says: One-third of high school students are illiterate.

* Anne Marie says: No, only one-fourth of them are.

The key to understanding this disagreement is found in the different definitions of the two terms — “high school students” and “illiterates”. If Gary and Anne Marie are using the same definitions, then there is a real disagreement here. But — if they are using different definitions, there is only a *verbal* disagreement.

Let’s say that the term “high school students” to GARY means “9th through 12th graders” while to Anne Marie it means “10th through 12th graders.” This just might make the difference in the statistics the two are using. Or perhaps Gary defines “illiterate” as “unable to read and write AT A PARTICULAR LEVEL OF COMPETENCE,” while Anne Marie means “unable to read or write AT ALL.”

This points out how important it is to agree upon definitions of terms at the BEGINNING of an argument, so that people are not arguing PAST each other, based on the fact that they are using different definitions of the same terms. Perhaps if they were to both use the same definitions, we would find that they would actually be in agreement. This is not guaranteed, but it would at least assure that any disagreement was *real* and not just *verbal*.

Without a clear understanding of Ezzo’s definitions of such terms as “demand feeding,” “attachment parenting,” “parent-directed-feeding,” “routine,” “metabolic chaos” [chortle!], and many others — [and whether those definitions are accurate] — it is difficult to discuss his teachings in relation to those topics. It is also important to evaluate definitions just as we do other elements in an argument.

Just because someone chooses to define a term a certain way — that does not make it a valid definition. Ezzo, at times, reminds me of the Cheshire cat in *Alice in Wonderland,* who said to Alice: “When I use a word, it means exactly what I want it to mean, and nothing else.”

The solution to a “verbal” disagreement is to define our terms carefully up front, and to adhere strictly to those definitions from then on. If we could do this with respect to many of the terms that Ezzo RE-defines — the argument would be over in a New York minute!

3) A REAL disagreement is a true contradiction. Both statements cannot be true at the same time. And a REAL disagreement can be over the definition of a term, as well as over anything else based upon that definition. Here is an example of a REAL disagreement:

* Monica says: Bill Clinton is the president.

* Paula says: No, he is not.

As long as we can be certain that both Monica and Paula are defining their terms in the same way, we can also be certain that between these two statements there is a *real* disagreement. They cannot both be true at the same time, and we ought to be able to find the evidence to determine which is really true. As a matter of fact — if you will recall the previous lesson — this is an example of a case in which it is stupid to argue, since the fact at issue is a matter of public record.

Now — in terms of our discussion in here, try this example:

* Gary Ezzo says: Demand feeding and attachment parenting create moral, physical, social, and academic problems for the poor child thus treated.

* Bill Sears says: No, it doesn’t.

IF these two men are using the same definitions, we have here a *real* disagreement. Both statements cannot be true at the same time, and one of them must be wrong about this. Now — not every *real* disagreement can be resolved, and people can still be respectful and friendly while maintaining some very big disagreements — but not in all cases.

Ezzo’s teachings — many of us claim — have the strong tendency to divide Christians who would otherwise get along just fine — and those divisions are over matters that should NOT be at issue. When it becomes clear that some of us reject Ezzo’s claims, those who accept those claims are powerfully motivated to judge us for that rejection [that is exactly what Ezzo himself does], personalize it, and withdraw from friendship with us. It has happened to me several times, and many others in here have reported the same thing.

In terms of disagreements — “apparent” disagreements are not worth arguing over, since they are merely self-reports of personal prefererence. “Verbal” disagreements need to be resolved by agreeing upon correct definitions of terms. “Real” disagreements SHOULD be argued about by those who believe in trying to find the truth.

Next = The problem of differing definitions

=============================================

LOGIC #5 — ARE WE USING THE SAME DEFINITION?

Suppose Pearl is driving Deborah to school. Consider the following conversation:

Deb: Pearl! Slow down! You are driving too fast!

Pearl: No, I am only doing 30, you high-strung vixen!

Deb: But that’s too fast! The speed limit on this street is only 20.

Pearl: No, 30 is not too fast. It’s perfectly safe.

Deb: Anything over the speed limit is too fast, Gonzo!

Pearl: There’s no harm in going 30. It’s safe, so it is not too fast.

Now — read that conversation again, and think about the following question as you do: Are Deb and Pearl using the same definition for “too fast”?

It should be obvious that they are not. And because of this, they are not likely to reach agreement until they see that they are arguing about two different things. As I said before — many people argue PAST each other because they are basing their arguments on different meanings of the same terms.

Suppose, on the other hand, that Deb had begun the conversation with the statement: “Pearl, you are going over the speed limit.” In that case, Pearl would have to agree.

It is important to understand the difference between this kind of argument and one that may come from different FEELINGS about a term. For example — we might agree about the MEANING of a term, but we might
disagree about our personal feelings ABOUT the term. That is, we might agree on what the word “authority” MEANS, but still disagree on how we FEEL about it [more on this in the next post].

However — in the driving story above, it is not “feelings” that differ, but DEFINITIONS. Deb and Pearl do not agree on the MEANING of “too fast.” They both may very well FEEL that it is unsafe to drive too fast, but they do NOT agree on just what “too fast” is.

In the course of the discussion in here, I have noticed many instances in which two people THINK they are talking about the same thing because they are using the same terminology. But they are, in actuality, talking about two entirely different things. One example is the argument about “demand feeding.” Several Ezzo defenders have argued based on a definition of these terms that is clearly out-of-sync with Ezzo’s own definition. Others use Ezzo’s twisted definition and refuse to accept the more standard one.

We should be especially careful concerning terms that can be easily confused. For example — the LEGAL definition of a word is often not the same as its DICTIONARY definition, or its COLLOQUIAL definition, or its RELIGIOUS definition, or its MEDICAL definition. When one is using a specialized definition, he is under obligation to use it correctly and consistently, and to show that it is the definition that is most appropriate.

The primary lesson I am trying to convey in this post is that we can often END an argument by agreeing upon our definitions — OFTEN, but not ALWAYS. But — even if we cannot END the debate, we can at least avoid arguing PAST each other, and focus on the REAL disagreement. With a mutual understanding of the correct definitions of terms — we can at least argue about the real differences between us.

I have found that, because of the adherence of many Ezzo defenders to Ezzo’s own “definitions,” we have a very hard time discussing the real issues in here. For example — we have had to repeatedly revisit the question of just what “demand feeding” and “attachment parenting” really are, because so many Ezzo defenders keep repeating HIS definitions and basing their arguments on it.

It is an interesting problem we have in here — and I have noticed it is more pronounced in this discussion than in any other I have ever been involved with. We have a terrible time agreeing upon basic definitions because Ezzo has “poisoned the well,” so to speak, with his own peculiar definitions — and his defenders prefer THOSE
definitions to more standard ones.

Regardless of the difficulty, we must work to understand the different definitions of terms, and to reconcile the ones we can, so that we may move on to the substance of the discussion. In some cases — the only
thing that will do is to adamantly insist upon the standard definition of a term, and force the issue upon those who insist upon adhering to definitions that are based on no evidence at all beyond the word of a man they have chosen to believe without investigation.

Next = Meaning vs. Feelings

==============================================

LOGIC #6 — MEANING VS. FEELINGS

Two people may agree on the MEANING of a word and yet have different FEELINGS about that word. These differing feelings lead the two to make different arguments and reach different conclusions about the same word. For example – suppose someone mentions the word “travel.” We could all easily understand the MEANING of the word “travel” — it means “to go from one place to another.”

However — discussions get much more complicated than this, because we would all have different FEELINGS about the word “travel.” For example:

* Maudie grew up in a military family, and had to move often. She wishes she could have stayed in one place.

* Agnes, on the other hand, has never been anywhere outside her own county ever since she was born. She wishes she had the time and the money to do some traveling.

* Stevie likes to impress his friends with his travels. He thinks about where to go next that would be different, a place his friends haven’t been.

* Ryan has four children, all in serious need of high-chair training — hahaha! When he hears travel, he thinks about all the trouble involved in taking all those kids along.

* Bubbagump works for a business that sends him all over the country regularly. He is tired of always sleeping alone in a motel bed, and always eating away from home. He wants to be home with his wife and children.

All five of these people agree on the basic meaning of “travel,” but they do NOT all FEEL the same about traveling. When they hear the word “travel,” if they are not disciplined thinkers, their minds may be dominated by their FEELINGS about travel, rather than being occupied with the meaning of the word.

Now — what does all this have to do with critical thinking? When a critical thinker is arguing with someone about something, he looks below the surface of the argument to see if he and the other person have the same FEELINGS about the subject. As a matter of fact, if you will recall the first post and that list of characteristics of a critical thinker — he seeks to separate EMOTIONAL thinking from LOGICAL thinking.

If he finds that the other person is basing his arguments on his FEELINGS about the word, rather than on the MEANING of the word, then he attempts to discuss the REASONS for the FEELINGS in order to get beyond any misunderstandings that could hinder further discussion. In many cases he will find out that the arguments are based not on logic but on personal feelings.

The problem with this is that personal feelings are not refutable! While one may be able to show another that his understanding of the MEANING of a term is erroneous, the other person’s FEELINGS about that term will still tend to affect — and it some cases, distort — his arguments. There is no point in arguing with another person’s FEELINGS.

And if that person insists on treating his own personal feelings as if they are facts and evidence, then there is no way to help that person become a critical thinker, and it becomes extremely difficult to reach that person with the REAL facts and evidence.

Have we seen this dynamic in here?

Next = Implications vs. Inferences

===========================================

LOGIC #7 — IMPLICATIONS AND INFERENCES

It is important for the critical thinker to learn to distinguish between IMPLICATIONS and INFERENCES. One who cannot — or will not — do this is prone to JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS — and usually UNWARRANTED ones.

The person who is doing the talking is the one who IMPLIES [or makes an IMPLICATION about] something when his facial expressions, his tone of voice, his mannerisms, and the words he uses are designed — deliberately — to lead others to draw a particular logical conclusion concerning that “something.” Assertions that are stated outright are EXPLICIT. Conclusions that the speaker WANTS the listener to come to, but which are NOT stated outright, are IMPLIED.

Any conclusions a LISTENER draws from hearing and observing someone ELSE speak — THOSE conclusions are known as INFERENCES. The SPEAKER implies — the LISTENER infers. IOW — the one who is GIVING the information is the only one who can IMPLY something about that information, and the one who RECEIVES the information is the only one who can INFER something about that information.

However — and HERE is the most important point in this post — the implication INTENDED by the speaker and the inference DRAWN by the listener may be two entirely different things! IOW — the listener may conclude that the speaker MEANT something that the speaker did NOT mean at all!

Since none of us in here can see each other’s facial expressions or mannerisms, and since we can’t hear each other’s tone of voice — all we have to go on are the words we use. I have noticed that the on-line discussion world does create a problem in this area of implications and inferences. It is difficult enough when we are speaking to each other in person — but the problem is magnified when we CANNOT see and hear each other.

Since we have no other clues, we are forced to rely solely on word usage [and sometimes on such things as punctuation!!!! and CAPITALIZATION, which is usually considered "shouting." BTW -- I use capitalization only for emphasis, since I cannot italicize words in here.]. Now — since we ONLY have the written word to go on, the problem I have already discussed — different FEELINGS about words — arises continually! People have a great tendency to READ attitudes and motives into the written words of others — and those conclusions about others are too often inaccurate.

Thus — as I mentioned above — the one who cannot, or will not, distinguish between his own INFERENCES and the other person’s IMPLICATIONS is prone to misinterpreting others; he is prone to “jumping to conclusions.” Jumping to conclusions is the lazy habit of reaching hasty, ill-thought-out, often irrational, and almost always
erroneous conclusions — based on far too little evidence [sometimes based on NONE].

The critical thinker seeks to avoid jumping to conclusions by learning to accurately distinguish between his own inferences and others’ implications. He also has the patience to wait — or ask — for more information before reaching his own conclusions.

The best thing to do when you INFER something from someone else’s words — especially if that inference is negative — is to ASK for clarification. Repeat the argument back to the other person and ask if your restatement is accurate. ASK for more information. Spell it out clearly, and try to get the other person to do the same — rather than relying on vague “gut reactions” or feelings.

The search for truth requires that we interpret each other’s arguments as accurately and clearly as possible, and the ability to separate inferences from implications is one of the strongest tools we can use in that search.

Next = Emotional words and arguments

=========================================

LOGIC #8 — EMOTIONAL WORDS AND ARGUMENTS

In logic, there are two definitions for “argument”:

1) A line of reasoning, supported by evidence, in which a person is attempting to CONVINCE others of the truth or falsity of something, and/or PERSUADE them to take a certain course of action.

2) A disagreement in which each party is trying to convince the other party that he [the other party] is wrong about something.

Back in the first post of this series, I stated that one of the characteristics of a “critical thinker” is that he attempts to separate EMOTIONAL thinking from LOGICAL thinking. After five years of observing and taking part in on-line discussions — most of them “arguments” of both kinds — I would have to conclude that the inability to distinguish between emotions and logic is the most common fallacy that most “arguers” commit.

I remember a student in one of my logic classes years ago. He was very bright, but he was also very high-strung and emotional; he had a tendency to “fly off the handle” whenever he felt like he was “losing” an argument. Once, when I was making a point forcefully — with passion — he blurted out, “AHA! YOU use emotions, too!”

I took that opportunity to clarify my meaning with regard to the use of emotions in a discussion. Of course, we ALL “use” emotions when we discuss — and ESPECIALLY when we disagree! That is a normal human response. However — there is a qualitative difference between, on the one hand, arguing with some — or even a lot of — emotion in your voice, and, on the other, BASING your argument on nothing MORE than your emotions! There is a difference between making a point with some level of passion in your voice and allowing your emotions to dictate your entire response, or even to hijack your reasoning!

Most RATIONAL arguments will almost inevitably contain some level of emotion; that cannot be avoided, nor need it be avoided completely. But an EMOTIONAL argument is one that is BASED mostly on — or it APPEALS mostly to — emotions rather than to logic and facts.

A critical thinker seeks to separate emotional THINKING from logical THINKING. He seeks to base his arguments on logic and facts, NOT on his feelings or emotions. And — even though he USES emotions in his arguments, he seeks to CONTROL those emotions, so that his MIND, not his FEELINGS, is in control of his thoughts, his words, and — especially — his REACTIONS to the arguments of others.

There are many varieties of emotional argument: name-calling; ad-hominem attacks; innuendo; appeals to fear, greed, or a desire to be accepted; appeals to pity; and many more. We will discuss these specific kinds of emotional arguments later on. For now — it is important to recognize that we need to learn to detect emotional thinking, and to avoid letting it control our own arguments.

Next = How to evaluate an argument

============================================

LOGIC #9 — EVALUATING AN ARGUMENT — INTRODUCTION

This message introduces a series of posts concerning accurate evaluation of arguments. An “argument” is a line of reasoning by which someone is attempting to CONVINCE others of the truth or falsity of something, and/or PERSUADE them to take a certain course of action. There are three primary elements in every argument — assertions, evidence, and assumptions.

ASSERTIONS are the positive statements of what a person believes to be true or false. Gary Ezzo, who has been teaching and writing for nearly twenty years, has made hundreds of strong assertions. Everyone in this discussion has made many assertions concerning Ezzo’s assertions. That is — we have made statements concerning what we believe to be true or false about what Ezzo has stated. The next post in this series will explain how to evaluate assertions.

EVIDENCE is what proves, or at the least, supports the assertions as true and valid. Evidence consists primarily of facts, statistics, examples, and expert opinions — all of which work together to demonstrate the validity of the assertions — or not. I will write several posts concerning how to evaluate the different kinds of evidence.

Without evidence, assertions are nothing more than bare opinion. Everyone has a right to an opinion, but — and this is crucial to understand — no one has a right to have his opinion respected or taken seriously. An opinion EARNS respect when it has been shown by supporting evidence to be WORTHY of respect — not necessarily proven conclusively, but at least supported as valid.

For example– I have a RIGHT to believe that the moon is made of green cheese, or that the earth is flat. No one can force me to not believe what I really do believe. But — I do not have the right to insist that anyone else take my opinion seriously or respect it. I must earn that right by showing the evidence that led me to that opinion.

If I cannot, or will not, support my opinion with evidence, others have the perfect right to refute, dismiss, and yes, even ridicule that opinion. And I have no logical or ethical basis for becoming indignant and offended when someone ridicules or dismisses an opinion of mine that has no evidence to support it. This is the nature of debate; this is the process of arriving, if we can, at the truth.

ASSUMPTIONS are the underlying presuppositions– the “givens” that the person making the argument assumes in advance — and is, in essence, asking his listeners to assume — to be true, without the need for corroborating evidence. Two Bible-believing Christians, for example, would share certain assumptions about the Bible, about God, and about several other issues, that they do not have to argue about, even while they do argue about certain other issues.

A Christian and an atheist, however, while surely sharing some assumptions about some things, would find many more areas of disagreement concerning the Bible, God, Jesus, etc. The last post in this series will help you evaluate Ezzo’s assumptions — and your own.

In terms of Ezzo and his claims — I want everyone to consider these three elements of an argument as you ask yourself some questions:

What are Ezzo’s primary assertions? What are the main claims of his that you have problems with — or that you agree with? Are they demonstrable, or are they beyond provability? Are they merely opinions without the benefit of evidence, or are they supported by solid evidence?

What is the nature of Ezzo’s evidence — in theology, in scripture, in physiology, in medical science, and in all the other areas he touches on? For example — what is the nature of his “medical evidence” and his “scriptural evidence” in support of his arguments concerning “deman feeding”? Does his evidence support his assertions, or is it merely a prop to expand the argument — in essence “begging the question”?

What are Ezzo’s assumptions? Do you share those assumptions, or do they need to be supported with evidence before you would agree with them? What really underlies his arguments, and does he expect you to agree with that foundation without demonstrating its validity?

Next = Testing Assertions of Fact

===========================================

LOGIC #10 — TESTING ASSERTIONS OF FACT

Most statements we hear, read, or make in speaking and writing are ASSERTIONS of fact, opinion, belief, and/or prejudice. In an argument, whether or not an assertion is to be accepted depends partly on which of these categories it falls into. This post is a brief discussion of “facts” and how we can determine the validity and trustworthiness of Ezzo’s arguments in relation to the facts.

A *fact* is verifiable — that is, one can determine its truth by checking legitimate sources of information (sources that are universally [or at least, nearly universally] accepted among those who themselves are widely acknowledged as authorities in a subject). The truth of a fact will be accepted by all reasonable persons — as far as it is possible to verify that fact.

If a statement of fact is verified by standard methods of investigation, but is not accepted by a person, then that person is NOT being reasonable — UNLESS he can provide powerful evidence for his rejection of that fact. In addition, any person who does publicly dispute such facts has a responsibility to support his opposition with evidence, and if he cannot, or will not, provide that evidence, it is perfctly logical to dismiss his opinion as unfounded.

Some easy examples:

* Texas is larger in area than California (verifiable fact).
* A triangle has three sides (true by definition).
* The House of Representatives approved two articles of impeachment against President Clinton in 1998 (verifiable fact).
* Trees are plants (true by definition).

Any person who would not accept the truth of these statements is unreasonable and untrustworthy, and has damaged his credibility to such an extent that any arguments he makes in relation to these topics should be highly suspect. And — any person who makes a claim that is contradicted by these facts, and who refuses to accept correction concerning such basic truths, proves himself to be untrustworthy.

Next = Evaluating Opinions

LOGIC #11 — EVALUATING OPINIONS

An “opinion” is a JUDGMENT — BASED on an examination of the FACTS. It is an honest attempt [or at least it SHOULD be an honest attempt] to draw a reasonable conclusion FROM evidence.

For example, many people look at the state of the health care funding in this country, and conclude that we should implement some sort of national health care system, administered by the government, and funded by taxes. Many others look at all the same facts, and conclude that such a system would be a disaster and should be resisted.

Same facts — two different opinions. Why? Because the two sides are emphasizing different facts, or they are drawing different conclusions from the same facts — or, maybe, because one side is actually wrong!

Both of these positions express a specific viewpoint. Both of them are arguable, because the same facts might lead different reasonable persons to different conclusions. And both opinions are potentially changeable. Upon further examination of the available evidence, a person could — gasp! — actually change his mind.

There are, of course, thousands of issues such as this. But there is another group to be identified, and unfortunately, it seems to be the largest group in most cases! That group is made up of those who have opinions that are based on nothing more than their erroneous ideas and false notions — or even on nothing more than their desire for things to be the way they think things should be.

Those in this group are the hardest to reach with arguments based on facts and logic, because they usually have no facts [and the ones they think they have are usually false], and often very little logic, so they are resistant to arguments in those areas. You know the old saying — “My mind’s made up; don’t confuse me with the facts.”

These are the ones who, when confronted with overwhelming evidence that their opinions are completely baseless, will respond with a statement such as, “Well, I have a right to my opinion, and my opinion is just as good as yours” [I discussed this fallacy in #9.]. When their position on some scriptural point is refuted, they fall back on the claim that, after all, every interpretation is just as valid as any other.

The main assertion — the THESIS — of an argument is ALWAYS an opinion. If it were really a verifiable FACT that all reasonable persons would accept, there would be no need for an argument. Other opinions — more specific ones — usually form the backbone of the argument supporting the main assertion. The person who can marshall actual FACTS to support his opinions has a good chance of persuading a reasonable person to change his mind.

By themselves, however, opinions do NOT make arguments. As a person critically evaluating an argument [and that SHOULD be all of us -- but some are incapable, while many are unwilling], you MUST satisfy yourself that the person making the argument HAS specified the evidence, and that the evidence actually does support his opinions.

With these principles in mind — let us ask some questions about Ezzo’s publically expressed opinions:

Does he clearly state his opinions, and back them up with the facts that led him to those conclusions, or does he put forward his opinions AS facts? When he does use purported facts to support his opinions — such as the facts of history, or medical science, or scripture — are those facts IN FACT true?

Can his statements of fact be verified or falsified? If they are false, what does that do to his opinions, which are based on them? Are his opinions the result of an honest look at, and a clear examination of, the facts — or are the facts doctored to support a preconceived opinion?

Think about his use of the Bible. Do the passages he uses, and the way he uses them, support his opinions, or does he impose his opinions on the passages, distorting their real intent in order to make it appear that they support his opinions? When he uses the scriptures to support his arguments, is he careful to follow the standard methods of interpretation that he was taught in seminary, and which he himself CLAIMS to use? Or does he violate that training, and instead, resort to twisting the scriptures and reading his own ideas into them?

How does he respond when others try to show him facts that would contradict his claims? Is he grateful for the new information? Does he admit error and change his opinion? Does he even consider the evidence? What does he do in response to challenges to his opinion?

While Ezzo has SAID that he welcomes criticism — we should ask several questions about this: Has he EVER acknowledged being wrong about ANY of his claims? Has he EVER retracted ANY of his previous statements? Has he EVER said that he has changed his mind about ANYTHING after being corrected by someone showing him the real facts?

Is Gary Ezzo to be seen as one who has come to a reasonable conclusion from a careful examination of the facts, or has he come to his opinions based on erroneous ideas and false notions — or even on nothing more than his own desire for things to be the way he wants them to be? If he is wrong about virtually everything that forms the basis for some of his opinions, can his opinions be right, nonetheless? And if he IS wrong, what of the untold harm being done as a result of his error?

Please go to the trouble to evaluate ALL claims — Ezzo’s claims, his critics’ claims, his defenders’ claims, MY claims — and your own. The one who is confident that he is in the right has no fear of an examination of the evidence behind his opinions. Knowing this, I am still flabbergasted to see so many of Ezzo’s defenders appear to be unwilling to engage in just such an examination.

Next = Definitions one more time

===========================================

LOGIC #12 — WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE — DEFINITIONS

As I explained in previous posts, there are three elements in every argument — assertions, evidence, and assumptions. Assertions are the claims that need to be supported; evidence is the actual support for the assertions; and assumptions are the beliefs and opinions that tie the evidence to the assertions. Each of these three elements of an argument needs to be analyzed carefully, if one is to accurately evaluate the argument’s truth claims.

We have covered assertions. The next several posts will discuss how to examine evidence. To begin with, I need to repeat just a couple of comments I made earlier:

——————————————-

< < EVIDENCE is what proves, or at the least, supports the assertions as true and valid. Evidence consists of definitions, facts, statistics, examples, and expert opinions -- all of which work together to demonstrate the validity of the assertions -- or not. Without evidence, assertions are nothing more than bare opinion.

<< Everyone has a right to an opinion, but-- and this is crucial to understand -- no one has a right to have his opinion respected or taken seriously. An opinion EARNS respect when it has been shown by supporting evidence to be WORTHY of respect -- not necessarily proven conclusively, but at least supported as valid. >>

———————————————-

In arguments concerning Christian teachings, scripture is a very important category of evidence. We have discussed Ezzo’s use of scripture in here — endlessly! In addition, I have already written a series of posts concerning hermeneutics — the principles of interpretation of scripture. If there is anyone in here who has not
read those posts, and who would like them, I would be happy to send them to you.

In the meantime — I will concentrate this series of posts on OTHER forms of evidence. Now — as I said, evidence consists primarily of definitions, facts, statistics, examples, and expert opinions. This post concerns DEFINITIONS.

The first step in evaluating evidence is to carefully examine the definitions — both stated and assumed definitions — of important terms. In any valid argument, but especially in arguments about abstract ideas, clear and consistent definitions of terms are essential. If the definitions are not stated clearly, then we often cannot tell what the person making the argument is really asserting — because we cannot tell what the crucial terms actually MEAN to that person.

More problematic — if the definitions are not normative — that is, if they are contrived or distorted definitions, far removed from the ordinary definitions used by those knowledgeable in the area under discussion — and used merely as prejudicial props to support erroneous assertions, then those very definitions, no matter how carefully and clearly stated, are highly suspect. They, in fact, are evidence AGAINST the very argument they are meant to support.

Before accepting Ezzo’s assertions, we have an obligation to hold
him accountable for his definitions. This is the very beginning of judging the truth or validity of his primary assertions. It is important to understand that IF Ezzo DOES redefine terms without evidence and distort the actual meanings of the terms, then his assertions lose their force entirely, for a very simple reason. That reason is that using a false definition of one’s own creation is NOT the same as discussing the actual thing one is attempting to discuss.

This is one form of a common logical fallacy known as the “Straw Man” argument. The fallacy consists in redefining or mischaracterizing something, then setting about to refute or attack — or defend — one’s own redefinition or one’s own wrong description of that “something.” The person has, in essence, created his own “scarecrow” to beat up or prop up — and he is calling that scarecrow by the name of the something that he wants to attack or defend.

But if that scarecrow — that “straw man” — is NOT really the same as the actual thing under discussion, then all of the refutations, accusations, defenses, and assertions are worthless! He has not really touched the actual “thing” he is claiming to discuss!

In terms of Ezzo’s definitions of “demand feeding” and “attachment parenting,” for example — it is clear to those who have examined these definitions from a position of knowledge that he has NOT defined these terms according to the standard understanding, but that he has put his own “spin” on them, badly distorting them in the process.

IOW — he has created “straw men” that he CALLS “demand feeding” and “attachment parenting.” In doing so, he has not really touched on the REAL “demand feeding” or the REAL “attachment parenting” at all! He has only beaten up the straw men of his own creation. In so doing, he has rendered his arguments — to the extent that he has mischaracterized the very things he is arguing about — worthless.

Moreover, it really doesn’t matter, for the purpose of evaluating Ezzo’s arguments, whether he has deliberately distorted the meanings, or has simply misunderstood their meanings. Either way — if his definitions are false, when so are his assertions based on those definitions.

Next = Facts

===============================================

LOGIC #13 — WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE — FACTS

Assertions are claims that require support. Evidence consists of the facts, examples, statistics, expert opinions, and other information that support the assertions. The evidence is supposed to demonstrate the validity of the claims. If the evidence is inadequate or questionable [or, I should add, in this context -- nonexistent!], then the assertions are, at best, doubtful.

FACTS are statements whose truth can be verified by observation and/or research. With apologies, I will repeat a little of what I wrote previously:

——————————————–

< < A *fact* is verifiable - that is, one can determine its truth by checking legitimate sources of information (sources that are universally accepted among those who themselves are widely acknowledged as authorities in a subject). The truth of a fact will be accepted by all reasonable persons -- as far as it is possible to verify that fact.

<< If a statement of fact is verified by standard methods of investigation, but is not accepted by a person, then that person is NOT reasonable -- UNLESS he can provide powerful evidence for his rejection of that fact. In addition, any person who does publicly dispute such facts has a responsibility to support his opposition with evidence. >>

——————————————

In this discussion we have looked at scores of assertions of fact made by Gary Ezzo. Most of them should be able to be confirmed or negated by an evaluation of the evidence. When a person makes a series of “factual” claims, and one after another of those claims proves true upon investigation of the facts, then he shows himself to be RELIABLE as a source of information, even if he occasionally slips up [as we all do]. The question then becomes: Is he amenable to correction in those few areas where he has erred? If so, then he is a TRUSTWORTHY source of information.

OTOH — when a person makes a series of claims, and one after another of those claims proves FALSE upon investigation of the facts, then he shows himself to be UNRELIABLE, even if he occasionally gets something right! The question then becomes: Is HE amenable to correction in those MANY areas where he has erred? If so, we can trust his sincerity, but we should STILL be wary of his information.

Even if he IS amenable to correction, the one who demonstrates a habit of erroneous claims is STILL unreliable UNTIL he demonstrates that he HAS accepted correction and IS more accurate in his claims. But — what
if such a person is NOT amenable to correction? What if he, instead, entrenches himself and refuses correction, even in the face of overwhelming evidence? What if his primary method for dealing with correction is simply to vilify the person making the correction — and even to attack those asking questions — and EVEN attacking those REPORTING on the controversy? Is this the kind of person who should be trusted to be an accurate and reliable disseminator of the truth?

Sometimes the facts are hard to come by with respect to a controversial issue. But there are always SOME facts to be found, and THOSE facts can be used as a good test of a person’s accuracy, reliability, and trustworthiness. As I say repeatedly: TRACK RECORD SPEAKS VOLUMES.

What about Ezzo’s track record — in science, in history, in definitions, in exegesis, in hermeneutics, in FACTS?

Next = Statistics

=================================================

LOGIC #14 — WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE — STATISTICS

In my last couple of posts on logic, I have been discussing various kinds of evidence. We have covered DEFINITIONS and FACTS. The third kind of evidence to evaluate is STATISTICS.

Statistics frighten and confuse a lot of people, but we can think of them as nothing more than FACTS employing numbers. The problem here is that so many people do NOT know how to evaluate statistical facts accurately, and that dishonest people deliberately misuse such facts in argument.

We have all seen some pretty extreme twisting of numbers in a lot of arguments, I am sure. OTOH — a correct understanding of statistical facts, and an accurate and fair use of them, will often make the difference between a sound argument and a worthless one.

Like other facts, statistics are often “facts” that can be checked by conferring with an authoritative source. For example, if two people are arguing about certain sports statistics, it should be easy to find an authoritative source of the statistics in question that would end the argument.

For ex. — while it may be fun for Stevie and Ryan, while taking turns pushing each other off of swings in the playground, to argue over who was the better slugger, Hank Aaron or Babe Ruth — it is stupid to argue over how many home runs each actually hit, since those statistics are documented.

Some good questions to ask yourself whenever you are confronted with statistical evidence:

* Are the numbers accurate?
* What do they really mean?
* Are they relevant?
* Do they provide sufficient evidence to support the argument?
* Has the one providing the statistics misreported, misinterpreted such evidence?

What about Ezzo’s statistics? Are they accurate? Are they reliable? What is their foundation? WHERE did he get them from? HOW does he report them? What about his medical arguments?

Next = Examples

=========================================

LOGIC #15 — WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE — EXAMPLES

There are four primary kinds of evidence used to support an argument — facts, statistics, examples, and expert opinion. The fifth kind of We have discussed facts and statistics. This post concerns EXAMPLES.

EXAMPLES are specific instances of the point being made, and there are three main categories of examples: historical “facts,” personal experiences, and hypothetical cases.

I. HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLES

Hypothetical examples can be considered good examples if they are “normative” — that is, if they really do represent the case. But many hypothetical examples violate this logical principle. Here are some things to watch out for in a hypothetical example:

A. Is it painted in extreme terms? Is the contrast or comparison so striking that credulity is strained to the maximum?

B. Is there actual credible evidence given anywhere in the argument to support the intended conclusions of the hypothetical examples?

C. Are the examples so extreme as to amount to scare tactics and sweeping generalizations?

D. Are the examples solid and representative, or are they virtually equivalent to the hyperbole exercised in the most outrageous and illogical of arguments — more akin to an infomercial than to a reasoned argument?

II. PERSONAL EXPERIENCE

The second kind of evidence by example is PERSONAL EXPERIENCE [PE]. PE’s are used constantly in all kinds of arguments — especially in arguments designed to sell something or to persuade others to take a certain course of action [both of which, of course, apply to Ezzo]. While PE’s can be very persuasive — and while they are not automatically to be dismissed as evidence, there are certain cautions the critical thinker should exercise as he evaluates them:

A. PE’s drawn from “true believers” or “dedicated followers” of a particular system suffer from the problem of bias much more seriously than does the testimony of a disinterested outsider. The one who has “bought into” the system has an enormous personal stake in the outcome, and often has a strong motive — even unconsciously — to “select” evidence that appears to support the system while dismissing or ignoring the evidence that would oppose it.

This is not a pejorative comment in the least — simply a statement of fact that any logician could verify. The same dynamic is at work among Christians, atheists, baseball fans, political junkies, and just about any group of people dedicated to a cause.

B. To be sure — it is often the case that opponents of the system could be biased in their view of the evidence also. The best source of unbiased information would be a neutral third party. In this case — there is a LOT of evidence to be found, with the result that there are precious few who remain neutral for long, since a great many of those who begin as neutral third parties quickly “take sides” upon an investigation of the actual evidence.

C. PE’s “work” as evidence when they actually support the truth claims they are “testifying” about — NOT when they merely say things such as “It blessed me” or “It worked for me,” or “Ezzo says.”

D. PE’s that support the claims of Ezzo are only valuable to the extent that they match or exceed the PE’s that give witness to the problems caused by those claims, AND to the extent that they REFUTE those negative claims! Along with the many claims that “it blessed me and my family,” we have seen just as many, or more, claims that “it caused serious problems for me, my family, my friendships, my church, etc.”

E. IF PE’s are to be used as evidence, then ALL the PE’s are to used. IOW — it is both illogical [it is called the "selective evidence" fallacy] and dishonest to accept the claims of “success” and “blessing” while ignoring or dismissing the claims of failure or serious problems. In addition — we should add in all the PE’s concerning the serious divisions among family members, among friends, and in churches over this issue. All of THESE PE’s are extremely important in evaluating the “fruit” of Ezzoism.

F. Ezzo himself and many of his defenders have NEVER accepted the PE’s concerning the problems and failures encountered by many people who were dedicated to making Ezzoism work for them. They dismiss any and all problems with the claims that they are the result of sin in the life of the person encountering the problem, or satanic opposition against the “higher standards,” or “jealousy” of Ezzo’s superior way, or being “too lazy or too stupid” to follow Ezzo correctly, or — if that doesn’t work — of following Ezzo TOO closely. And so on.

G. Logically, most of the negative PE’s are very powerful as evidence, for they almost assuredly come from people who originally had a commitment to making the “system” work — people who were positively predisposed toward Ezzo and his ideas; after all, they were trying to follow what he taught! Many of them are STILL supportive, even while experiencing the problems.

III. HISTORICAL PRECEDENTS

The third kind of example is HISTORICAL PRECEDENT. This kind of example can be a powerful form of evidence if it is accurate, relevant, representative, and adequate – AND if it is interpreted accurately. I won’t say much about this form of evidence, because it is actually quite simple [and quite revealing!] to check up on Ezzo’s historical claims.

—————————————–

Concerning all three of these kinds of examples — here are four questions to ask yourself:

1) Are the example accurate? Are they based on direct observation, research, and trustworthy sources? Or are they pure invention, used for the purpose of vilifying one side in an argument, or glorifying the other? For example — are Ezzo’s arguments concerning breastfeeding accurate, or are they an inaccurate picture designed to lead to one, and only one, conclusion?

2) Are they relevant? Do they come from sources with authority and expertise in the field under discussion, and do they relate directly to the point being made?

3) Are they representative? Do they reflect the full range of the samples from which they are supposedly taken? IOW — do they truly reflect what is generally true about the subject at hand?

4) Are they adequate? Is the “evidence” plentiful enough and specific enough to support Ezzo’s claims?

Next = Expert Opinion

================================================

LOGIC #16 — WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE — EXPERT OPINION

We are continuing our examination of evidence. We have covered definitions, facts, statistics, and examples. The last form of evidence that is usually used to support an argument [We dealt with "scripture" in a separate category] is EXPERT OPINION.

What is EXPERT OPINION? Very simply, it is the considered judgments formed by those who are widely acknowledged as the authorities on a particular subject. It is the comclusions and reasonings of those who have the highest levels of education and perience in the area under discussion.

For example — when we discuss scripture, we often refer to the “opinions” of experts in Greek or Hebrew, or in linguistics, or in history. In a discussion of the medical issues, we refer to experts in that field. We have in our midst several experts on human lactation, and several experts on other topics.

Then there’s Metochoi the Gadfly — the world’s all-time champion authority on — um, er — I’ll get back to you on that one! Actually — if everyone promises not to test me TOO vigorously on this claim [hahaha], I will confess that I could be considered a sorta-kinda bona fide “expert” in grammar. Ain’t that a kick in the teeth!

But — using myself as an example — if I were to quote an authority with even more expertise than my own [and there are, of course millions of them!], all the better. The same goes for any of us. Experts are ALWAYS referring to the opinions of other experts, and they use each other’s research and insights constantly. By definition, experts are concerned with “knowing” the most about a subject, and they argue, debate, and research endlessly in their quest to “know.” This is how they arrived at the status of “expert.”

Expert opinion is one of the most important forms of evidence, because the other forms of evidence often need interpreting before being applied to the case. Those who have been more highly educated in a certain field, and who have much more experience in that field, are presumed to have the advantage over “amateurs” in their ability to interpret the other forms of evidence accurately and logically. This does not denigrate the contributions of the talented amateur, by any means [more on that later].

We may have our definitions and our facts right, but we can still misinterpret the significance of those facts and render our arguments invalid. In addition, in any controversial area, there will be those who choose to manipulate the facts and deliberately interpret them in ways that do not legitimately reflect the truth, but which DO make their arguments look better to the undiscerning and the naïve. This is where expert opinion becomes valuable – as a test of the conclusions and reasoning of those who do NOT “know” as much.

OTOH — just quoting the experts does not “win” anything, nor does it necessarily support one’s argument. If the issue is one about which there is a great deal of disagreement AMONG the experts, then all sides in the argument could quote experts to support their positions, and we would not get very far. Expert opinion is the most powerful when it reflects the consensus among the overwhelming majority of those who are the authorities in a subject.

What about the non-expert? What about HIS opinions? They are NOT automatically to be dismissed simply because he is not an acknowledged expert in the field. A couple of years ago in here, I had to laugh long and hard when I read one person telling another that his [the second person's] opinion about a Hebrew word was “irrelevant” because he was not a Hebrew scholar.

That is total nonsense! It is true that, all other things being equal, a non-expert’s opinion carries much less weight than does that of an expert, but it is NOT automatically “irrelevant.” No one’s opinion is AUTOMATICALLY irrelevant, as long as we have at least SOME knowledge in the field and SOME evidence to bring to bear on the discussion.

HOWEVER – if someone has little or no knowledge in a subject, and NO access to those who DO possess that knowledge [or if he REFUSES to be taught by those with the knowledge] — then THAT person’s opinions SHOULD be rightly dismissed by anyone really interested in the truth. The odds that such a person will have truth to impart that the experts have missed are slim indeed.

The first question to ask yourself before evaluating expert opinion is: Is there a consensus in this field, or is it still a matter of much controversy? If there IS a consensus, then the one who is standing AGAINST that consensus is STILL not to be automatically dismissed — but the burden is on that person to support his opposition. If the experts have given their evidence, then the one who is in disagreement is obligated to refute their evidence and present his.

If his evidence is compelling, he will change minds. But — if he were to misdefine well-established and widely accepted terms, misstate the evidence, and mischaracterize the arguments of the experts with whom he is disagreeing, he is likely to get nowhere — at least with anyone but the most ignorant [I am not using that word pejoratively; it is merely descriptive. A person who lacks knowledge in a certain area is "ignorant" in that area, and is vulnerable to false claims until he has educated himself a little bit. This is why, for example, I have gone to the trouble of attempting to bring others "up to speed" on logic and hermeneutics.].

I believe that this is exactly the situation we find with respect to many of the claims of Ezzo. Is there a consensus among the experts concerning the definitions of “demand feeding,” for example — or concerning the issue of “scheduled feedings”? Yes, there is. Have the “experts” given the evidence for that consensus? Yes, they have.

Does Ezzo stand against that consensus? Yes, he does. Has he given any credible evidence for his stance? IMO — No, he hasn’t. He has redefined terms, misstated the facts, dismissed evidence that doesn’t fit his claims, and even resorted to dishonesty [if we are to believe the reports -- and, based on the track record, I do believe them] when confronted with his own words.

It’s very simple, logically. IF the experts are wrong [and they have been wrong before], then Ezzo should be able to present the evidence that they are wrong — fairly and accurately — without having to resort to dishonesty and manipulation of the evidence. What has he done? IF Ezzo is right, then he should be able to present the evidence that he is right — fairly and accurately. What has he done?

Just a couple more points: Many people do not even understand HOW to present expert opinion. When presenting such evidence, one must be scrupulously careful to quote it exactly, in context, or paraphrase it accurately. But the most important rule is to present it WITH THE ORIGINAL INTENDED MEANING INTACT.

It won’t do to quote an expert, and then re-interpret what that expert is saying, in order to bolster your case. No – what the expert MEANT — in context — is the key to accurate evaluation of the evidence. And it is very careless — or downright dishonest — to violate that meaning by twisting it around to make it say something different from what the person intended. This is DOUBLY troubling when we “catch” someone doing this kind of thing to the scriptures.

Secondly — many people — when confronted with expert opinion that refutes their argument — resort to dismissing of ALL experts as biased. Just the other day, on another forum, someone responded to me with, “Well, we can all find experts to back up whatever we want to say.” That is not necessarily true. If it is an issue about which there is widespread consensus, then you will NOT be able to find experts to support your argument — if your argument has no evidence behind it.

Remember — the opinion of the non-expert is not to be dismissed out of hand, but the burden is on that person to demonstrate, with actual evidence, WHY he is standing against the consensus of the experts. I have stood with those who have done so, and I have not been afraid to confront the consensus myself — IF I thought I had the evidence to support my position.

Expert opinion is a very important form of evidence in an argument such as this one. It is NOT more important than the facts — but it often helps us SEE the real significance OF those facts.

Next = Questions to ask about evidence

===========================================

LOGIC #17 — TWO QUESTIONS TO ASK ABOUT EVIDENCE

To recap briefly, there are six kinds of evidence to evaluate in Ezzo’s arguments: definitions, facts, statistics, examples [including historical precedents], expert opinions, and citations from the Bible. I have devoted a separate post to each of the first five of those kinds of evidence, and I have already written a series of posts concerning biblical interpretation. [HEY! What should we do NEXT year? Grammar??????]

This post concludes my discussion of evidence. Concerning each area of evidence, there are four main questions that the critical thinker must ask and attempt to answer: Is it accurate? Is it relevant? Is it representative? And — Is it adequate? This post “fleshes out” these four questions, so you can apply them to your evaluation of Ezzo’s – — his critics’ and defenders’ — arguments.

1) IS IT ACCURATE?

Accurate evidence has two primary characteristics, and without these two characteristics, it is NOT accurate! First, it is either quoted exactly or paraphrased accurately. Second, it is presented with the ORIGINAL MEANING and INTENT UNCHANGED. It is not enough to have quoted it exactly, if in the process, enough context is left out so as to distort the original meaning.

For example, suppose I were to say that I can PROVE that the Bible actually advocates atheism. You say, “Prove it, Logic-boy!”

Okay — here is my proof: PSALM 14:1 says, “There is no god.” And that statement is repeated in PSALM 53:1. I have quoted the Bible exactly, word-for word, thus proving that it teaches atheism.

But — as a critical thinker with some common sense, you are suspicious of my claim. So what should you do? You should CHECK on it. Hey — even if you are NOT suspicious, you should check on it! You should look up those verses to see if I have accurately reported their words.

And if you do that, you will find that I have, indeed, quoted the words correctly, but that I have LEFT OUT the CONTEXT of those words — which changes everything! What do those verses REALLY say? “The FOOL has said
in his heart, ‘There is no god.’” Quite a difference, no?

Now — how would that discovery affect your confidence in my reliability and truthfulness? What if I were in the habit of doing such things in my arguments? Remember — it is not just expert opinions or biblical references that can be distorted or mischaracterized — the same can be done to facts, statistics, and examples — even
definitions.

If the person making the argument shows a penchant for distorting the evidence by presenting it in such a way as to change the original meaning — either by misquoting, paraphrasing inaccurately, or leaving out context — then that person has shown himself to be an unreliable source of truth, and a reasonable person would be justified in questioning his entire argument.

In terms of Ezzo’s arguments — what have we shown in our discussions in here? Are his definitions accurate? What about his facts? His statistics? His examples? His citations of expert opinion? His biblical citations?

Do his assertions disagree with the experts’ opinions, and if so, does he give any credible evidence for those assertions? Is he usually right, and when wrong, willing and eager to be corrected? Or is he usually wrong, and when corrected, resistant and even dishonest?

If the answer to ANY of these questions is NO [or YES to the last one] — then we should be extremely cautious about accepting Ezzo’s assertions as valid. If the answers to ALL of them [except the last one] are NO — then we would be wise to reject his argument entirely until he DOES come up with some accurate evidence.

In practical terms, if the answer to this first question [Is the evidence accurate?] is NO — then there is no need to even consider the next three questions. But — just in case we DO find something accurate in Ezzo’s evidence, we then need to go to question number two:

2) IS IT RELEVANT?

Relevant evidence has two primary characteristics, and without these two characteristics, it is NOT relevant. First, it comes from sources with authority on the topic. Second, it relates directly to the point being made.

For example, I am not an expert on, nor am I even knowledgeable about, tailoring [I asked my wife to name something I know nothing about. She started naming things that start with "T". After a couple of hours of
that, I picked tailoring from the list!]. Therefore, my bare opinion about tailoring cannot be considered as evidence.

OTOH, if I had enough knowledge, and if I used the experts accurately, my opinion could very well be relevant, even though it would still carry much less weight than that of an expert on tailoring — such as my wife.

Concerning Ezzo’s evidence — if you can find some that is ACCURATE — ask yourself: Is it RELEVANT? Is it drawn from authoritative sources, and does it relate directly to the point being made? If the answer to this second question is YES — then we move to question three:

===============================================

LESSON #18 = TWO MORE QUESTIONS TO ASK ABOUT EVIDENCE

3) IS IT REPRESENTATIVE?

Representative evidence has one primary characteristic, and without this characteristic, it is NOT representative. That is, it reflects the full range of the sample from which it is said to be drawn.

For example, if I were to claim that Alabamans hate New Yorkers, you should ask: How many Alabamans did you ask? How were the questions worded? And — what were ALL the answers?

If it turns out that I had only asked about ten Alabamans, then — even if 100% of my “sample” said, “Yes, I hate them damnyankees!” [That IS one word to many southerners! -- Hardy-har-har] — my evidence, while accurate and relevant, cannot be said to be representative of the opinion of Alabamans!

I think the most obvious piece of “Ezzo evidence” that illustrates this problem is his characterization of “demand fed” children in the form of the fictitious child with all those problems. Even if he happened to know a few children like that — would that “evidence” really be representative?

Recall that the overwhelming majority of children throughout history have been “demand fed” — of necessity. Recall that most children in most other cultures are “demand fed” today. And realize that most children of the mid-20th century in America were NOT “demand fed.” Now — look at the behavior of those modern generations of “schedule fed” Americans and tell me you really believe Ezzo’s characterizations.

Another example: Ezzo and some of his defenders are in the habit of attacking the integrity and the motives of his critics. They “poison the well” by name-calling and inuendo, and expect people to dismiss the criticisms out of hand, based on Ezzo’s characterization of the critics’ character. But many of Ezzo’s defenders refuse to give up on HIS claims when HIS character problems are pointed out.

More important than that — let us assume, for the sake of argument, that some of Ezzo’s critics really ARE big jerks with wrong motives. EVEN IF they could find someone who actually WAS like this — is that really REPRESENTATIVE of the critics? What do Ezzo defenders really KNOW about Rebecca Prewett, Steve Rein, Kathleen Terner, Bill Sears? I mean — what do they really know about these people that they did NOT “get” from Ezzo or some Ezzo defenders?

And finally — EVEN IF ALL THE CRITICS were big jerks with bad motives — WHAT ABOUT THE EVIDENCE? Let’s assume, for the sake of argument,that Ezzo and all his defenders are pure as the driven snow, and that all his critics are Satan’s minions? WHAT ABOUT THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE?

If you have made it this far — if Ezzo’s evidence is, indeed, accurate, and relevant, and representative — then you have one more question to ask:

4) IS IT ADEQUATE?

Adequate evidence has two primary characteristics, and without these two characteristics, it is NOT adequate. First — it is PLENTIFUL enough to support the claim. Second — it is SPECIFIC enough to support the claim.

For example — were I to claim that football players are more stupid than computer geeks, you should insist that I give the evidence by citing facts, statistics, examples and expert opinions in such quantity, and with enough specificity, to support my claim.

With respect to Ezzo’s evidence — his facts, his statistics, his examples, his citations of expert opinion, and his biblical references — HOW MUCH of this evidence is there really? Is it ADEQUATE to support his claims? That is — is it PLENTIFUL enough and SPECIFIC enough to provide convincing evidence of the truth and validity of his arguments?

Examine each and every assertion of fact. Examine the basis for each and every opinion. Examine each and every statistic. Examine each and every definition. Examine each and every example. Examine each and every citation of expert opinion. And most important of all — examine each and every scriptural prooftext.

Are they ACCURATE? Are they RELEVANT? Are they REPRESENTATIVE? And are
they ADEQUATE?

I wonder how many of Ezzo’s defenders actually examine ANY of his claims? If so — why can they not give us ANY of the evidence that we have been asking for in here for FIVE YEARS? Why is it that all they have ever been able to give us are: “It blessed me,” “it worked for me,” and “You’re just bashing a good man”?

================================================

Archived at the Parent’s Place Ezzo Debate Board:
Evaluating Ezzo’s Logic 1A
Evaluating Ezzo’s Logic 1B
Evaluating Ezzo’s Logic 1C
Evaluating Ezzo’s Logic 1D

___________

2 Comments »

Ezzo Week 2010: Else Web

Posted by TulipGirl | Under GFI / Ezzo / Babywise Wednesday Jul 14, 2010

Joining in our week of looking closely at the Gary Ezzo / Babywise / Growing Families International teachings include a variety of people in the blogosphere (and twitter and facebook!)

I strongly encourage everyone to read the post at SortaCrunchy about How to Give Voice to Your Ezzo Concerns Online. It’s very well said, and I look forward to what promises to be a great series from Megan this week!

From the home of this year’s GFI conference, Michael Bates writes about Gary Ezzo Comes to Tulsa. He’s written before at Batesline blog about their Ezzo experiences and confesses, “It is hard to ditch the Ezzo mindset. You’re confronted with regrets over years wasted and damage done…”

On the flip side of that, the blog that aspires to be a Q&A resource for all things pro-Babywise has been inspired by our annual Ezzo Week blogathon to collect “It worked for me!” stories from those who are currently pleased with Babywise. You may be surprised that I’m linking to a pro-Babywise website. I think it is important for people researching the concerns about this issue have access to experiences and information from a wide variety of sources. I wasn’t surprised to read some of these stories and see my OWN story in them — I thought Babywise was the best thing since sliced bread when my oldest was still very young. It was easy for me to dismiss problems I was seeing, explain away concerns I had because they were “normal” among BW moms. While I do find the occasional long-term Ezzo parent, you’ll find that most who enthusiastically share their successes still have very young children. We’ll be talking more about the “It worked for me!” scenarios later in the week, but until then, along with the “success stories,” please take the time to read about when it most definitely has not worked at Voices of Experience.

We’ll be sharing more links throughout the coming week! Please let me know if you are blogging about Babywise / Ezzo parenting this week and I don’t see it right away.

_____________________________

3 Comments »

Ezzo Week 2010: Along the GFI Way

Posted by TulipGirl | Under GFI / Ezzo / Babywise Tuesday Jul 13, 2010

The Ezzo.info website has a great collection of stories from Babywise/Ezzo/GFI families on the Voices of Experience page. These stories represent a range of families — families who utilized Ezzo parenting ideas motivated by religious conviction, who simply wanted to Babywise their infants to get the promised sleeping through the night, or who were looking for some practical ideas for toddlers.

Of these stories, I’ve found especially valuable reading the reflections from the families with older children, those who stayed the course and truly understood and implemented the Ezzo materials as intended. One example of this is ChewyMom and her family. ChewyMom was qualified as what is termed a “Contact Mom.” These Contact Moms are not directly related to to Growing Families International, but are under the umbrella of a sister-organization. (This is a little confusing, I know — my understanding is this division is related to legal liability and tax reasons, so the Contact Moms can be part of a legally recognized 501(c)3 nonprofit while Gary Ezzo’s organization is a for-profit “ministry”.) But the Contact Moms program — about which we’ll be talking later this week — are comprised of the mothers who are recognized as knowing, understanding, and utilizing the material with such proficiency that they are recommended to new Ezzo moms to provide support and advice. Clearly, anyone qualified to be a Contact Mom is speaking from “the inside” of the Ezzo philosophical mindset.

I’d encourage you to read through the series ChewyMom wrote on her journey through Ezzo parenting and what she learned along the way. I think you’ll find great encouragement whether you are a new moms starting out or if you are reflecting on your parenting years.

How I Got Involved with GFI
Why I Loved GFI
Becoming a Contact Mom for GFI
Red Flags with GFI
Disassociating Myself from the Ezzos and GFI
My Parenting Post-GFI

In a similar vein, other mothers have written on Ezzo parenting from a “gone the distance” perspective. This includes another contact mom, Laurie, who has a collection of essays she wrote partly while she was utilizing during her Ezzo years and a few from shortly thereafter.

Kim had older children when she started to pull from the Ezzo parenting philosophy. Her posts are less of a chronology of events than Chewy’s but very clearly illustrate the impact of these ideas:
The Right Equipment
Random Thoughts on Mothering
Merciful Parenting

And again, I invite you to read through the archives of the Ezzo.info Voices of Experiences collection, and if you want to tell your story, you can email the editor (who isn’t me!) at ezzo.info AT gmail DOT com.

_____________________________

9 Comments »

Welcome to the 7th Annual Ezzo Week 2010

Posted by TulipGirl | Under GFI / Ezzo / Babywise Monday Jul 12, 2010

Welcome to the 7th Annual Ezzo Week blogfest here at TulipGirl! As is customary, this is timed to coincide with the annual GFI National Leadership and Alumni Conference hosted by Gary and Anne Marie Ezzo, July 15-17th in Tulsa.**

We are approaching Ezzo Week 2010 from the viewpoint of Biblical, historic Christianity. While the target audience of the Ezzo teachings were originally evangelical families, these materials – especially On Becoming Babywise – are now mainstreamed into families with a wide-range of backgrounds. We invite you to read the theological critiques even if you are of a different faith or are more broadly non-religious.

For those who are reading who have used ideas from Gary Ezzo’s teachings, I want to reiterate that critiques written here are not a judgment of you or your love for your child. We will analyze the materials as they are written and taught by Gary and Anne Marie Ezzo, as well as they are commonly understood and applied.

However, I know that when someone criticizes ideas we like—especially in the realm of family and parenting—it can very easily feels like someone is criticizing us personally. Please keep in mind that I know many parents who apply these ideas – I was one of them – and that I understand your motivation is out of love and the desire to do the best for your child.

Some of the topics we’ll be considering this week include:
* Theological and Biblical Concerns
* It Worked for Me!
* Infant Feeding and Growth
* Survey Says. . . Related Research
* Child Development Issues
* Concerns about Divisiveness
* Need for Mommy-Encouragement

Ezzo Week in History:
Ezzo Week 2004
Ezzo Week 2005
Ezzo Week 2006
Ezzo Week 2007
Ezzo Week 2008
Ezzo Week 2009
Ezzo Week 2010

This week we really encourage feedback, either at the blog or you can email ezzoweek AT gmail DOT com. If you want to extend the conversation on your own blog or website, please let us know so we can link to you as well.

** Tulsa trivia sidenote: The 2003 GFI conference was also held there, and Cindy Webb wrote an award-winning article Is the Babywise Method Right for You? published in Tulsa Kids magazine.

_____________________________

16 Comments »

National Museum of African Art

Posted by TulipGirl | Under Around the World, Art and Beauty, Family Journal Friday Jul 2, 2010

National Museum of African Art
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC

6 Comments »

Do Solemnly Swear

Posted by TulipGirl | Under Family Journal Friday Jun 11, 2010

6 Comments »

And the Winner Is. . .

Posted by TulipGirl | Under Around the World, Family Journal Tuesday Jun 8, 2010

12 Comments »

Flag Day, Waiting

Posted by TulipGirl | Under Around the World, Family Journal Monday Jun 7, 2010

In 6 hours and 45 minutes, our Flag Day ceremony starts. . . the moment when we learn where and when we’ll be going. . . posts scattered around the world. On pins and needles. . .

I’ve confused friends by mentioning Flag Day, since the US holiday is June 14th, and Flag Day our date-with-destiny is June 7th. This is a great summary of what “our” Flag Day is.

I have a gut feeling about a certain African country, our daring friends have placed their bets on a place in Central America but is hoping for Asia. We have a lot of places we’d love to go, many more that would be fun, and just a couple that are. . . ummm. . . let’s just say we have our fingers crossed about one or two places where we’d rather have another family enjoy the exotic life there. But the kids are excited and I know that anywhere we are posted will be an adventure, will be a great place for our family.

5 Comments »

Giddy, Bubbly Feelings

Posted by TulipGirl | Under Around the World, Family Journal Thursday Jun 3, 2010

You know that bubbly, anxious-happy feeling in your belly before a big event? I’ve had that lately. Not constantly, like the weeks before our wedding, but that giddy feeling has caught me by surprise throughout the past week.

And the reason for this excitement? In just a few short days we find out where around the world we’ll be moving and when. . . Africa? Asia? Europe? (Stuck a year here in DC?)

To back up a bit. . . those who know us in real life know most of the scoop. Online I’ve been a bit more circumspect. I haven’t been sure what guidelines or boundaries would be best, how up front I could be. . . how transparent I wanted to be. . . But Hubby and I have talked it over and blogging is such an important part of our our family journaling, such an important part of our support structure (especially when we are overseas) and so it’s time to share our good news.

Hubby has been hired as a Foreign Service Officer with the US Department of State. What this basically means is that he has the coolest of cool jobs, that all the bits of knowledge he’s gathered through the years are useful in an integrated way. (Did you know that the FSWE has questions on jazz?) All of this life and work experiences — military, missionary, professor — have been good preparation for this career. The gypsy life we’ve had so far has been better resume building for the foreign service than if we had carefully structured our lives as preparation. And no, to the multiple friends who have asked, Hubby is not a spy. And we get to travel! With the kids! Explore new places, new languages, new foods! The boys have been spending hours pouring over maps and atlases, reading about countries on our bid list and deciding where they want to go (and don’t want to go!)

Insert standard disclaimer here. The views and writings on this blog do not represent any governmental entity, ecclesiastical body, family member or other formal or informal group. Ideas shared, beliefs explained, observations made, and causes promoted are purely my own.

I’ve been blogging here at TulipGirl for over six years now. . . I don’t want to stop. I don’t want to hide our adventures, joys and struggles. On the other hand, my blogging can have an effect on Hubby’s career similar to when we were on the mission field. I know how to use discretion. But it was easier before when Hubby’s supervisor was someone I knew and worked with regularly myself, and not an unknown with an unclear idea of what is and isn’t unacceptable.

Yet, here we are, and here we keep track of our family.

Back to the giddy, bubbly feelings. . . We’ve been in the DC area for just over three weeks. Next Monday is a much anticipated day for those going through FSO training, Flag Day. Flag Day is when we find out both where we are going, and when it is most likely based on the training Hubby is requird to have for that particular post. On our bid list are about 10 different job categories, about 60 different countries, with the opportunity to learn about 15 languages. While Hubby has extra brownie points with State for his mad Russian language skillz, it’s not likely we’ll end up in a Russian speaking country this go around. (Next time? Almost definitely.)

So what do the kids think? I keep getting that question, and in all honesty — they are thrilled. Yet, Florida has been their home for the past five years and their memories of Ukraine and moving are faded. Moving every two to three years will be new to them. It will be challenging. I grew up nomadic, and while I loved it, I also remember it being hard. I remember being homesick (for me, “homesick” usually meant missing my Maw Maw; when we moved to Illinois, it meant missing the warmth and relaxed lifestyle of Gtmo.) We’ve gone through some TCK struggles in the past. I’m not naive, or think it will be easy for them — in spite of their current excitement. And yet. . . and yet, what I remember from my own growing up years is moving with my family every few years, new adventures, travels. . . driving across the country with laughter and singing. . . my sister being my best friend. . . lots of laughter, and always a close family. I know my kids are going to be angry-sad-cranky-struggle-frustrated. But I believe we are also going to have the strong, close family — and memories of adventures and fun.

So, this is why we are in DC, giddy and going to new places.

21 Comments »

Memorial Day 2010

Posted by TulipGirl | Under Blog Stuff Monday May 31, 2010

Little Soldier

Little soldier, little child
You’re still too young to know,
The impact of the battlefield
Or how its memory lingers so.

Playing war is now a game,
Its truth you can’t conceive
Should you defend, until its end
Our freedom to believe.

In God, in man, in liberty
With rights for one and all,
Little soldier, little child,
That day you’ll stand as tall.

Written by Maureen Kuehne
Copyright 2003

Remembering.

2 Comments »

Water Lilies, Watching

Posted by TulipGirl | Under Family Journal Friday May 28, 2010

Kenilworth Aquatic Gardens with friends.

2 Comments »

Tulips in Chicago

Posted by TulipGirl | Under Family Journal Monday May 10, 2010

Visiting my folks in Chicago, I felt as if the city heard I was coming and planted tulips just for me. It was a gorgeous time of year to be there, and the time I spent with my parents was wonderful.

1 Comment »

Around the World. . .

Posted by TulipGirl | Under Around the World, My Ever-lovin' Husband Thursday May 6, 2010

The trip begins with a kiss. . .

1 Comment »

April Snow in Arizona!

Posted by TulipGirl | Under Family Journal Monday Apr 26, 2010

Woke up one morning in Bisbee to see snow coming down heavily. As our bed was against a wall of windows and I wasn’t expecting it, it was quite breathtaking.

Of course when we packed up in Florida, my (experienced) priority was on packing light. Six people times clothes and books for five weeks crammed into an SUV? Definitely need to pack light. And it is spring, isn’t it? Even with an itinerary taking us out west and up north — we still packed light. I made sure each child had a kofta. (Errr. . . sweatshirt. That’s one of the things that will always come to mind in Russian rather than English.) I should have remembered Bisbee always gets a good snow well into April (and often even May!)

Thankfully, in spite of the snow, it was a warm snow. Or something. The boys layered, borrowed clothes from the cousins, wore socks on their hands and went out and played in the snow, and then came in for a hot breakfast.

1 Comment »

Highlights from Bisbee

Posted by TulipGirl | Under Around the World, Family Journal Sunday Apr 25, 2010

Woke up to roosters crowing. . .

The boys played with their cousins. . .

T12 restrung his guitar with the help of Uncle Pat. . .

Amazed at how my niece looks like my sis did at that age. . .

Sis fed gourmet meals to kids on paper plates. . .

Washed dishes by the light of the chandelier and candles. . .

With the help of my niece. . .

I did homework. . .

Didn’t get any really good pics of my sis and I together. . .

And had a wonderful, peaceful visit.

No Comments »

Through a Child’s Lens

Posted by TulipGirl | Under Family Journal Friday Apr 16, 2010

What we see in New Orleans, Maw Maw, City Park, photos by the kids. . .

2 Comments »

NOLA – April 2010

Posted by TulipGirl | Under Family Journal Thursday Apr 15, 2010

1 Comment »

Investigating: Why’s Behind Child Abuse

Posted by TulipGirl | Under Pearls / TTUAC / NGJ Friday Mar 26, 2010

KHSL has done an in-depth, three-part series spurred by recent child abuse in their area of California, including the tragic death of Lydia Schatz. Part one of “For the Children’s Sake” focuses on the Schatz family and Michael Pearl of No Greater Joy Ministries.

(Note: Click on Part 1 for the report on Lydia Schatz.)

(Thanks to Linda for the head’s up, and the Pastor Matthew Raley for his willingness to be interviewed.)

6 Comments »

God With Us

Posted by TulipGirl | Under Theology for Girls Sunday Mar 21, 2010

Psalm 139:1-10

O Lord, you have searched me and known me!
You know when I sit down and when I rise up;
you discern my thoughts from afar.

You search out my path and my lying down
and are acquainted with all my ways.

Even before a word is on my tongue,
behold, O Lord, you know it altogether.

You hem me in, behind and before,
and lay your hand upon me.

Such knowledge is too wonderful for me;
it is high; I cannot attain it.

Where shall I go from your Spirit?

Or where shall I flee from your presence?

If I ascend to heaven, you are there!

If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!

If I take the wings of the morning
and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea,
even there your hand shall lead me,
and your right hand shall hold me.

If I say, “Surely the darkness shall cover me,
and the light about me be night,”
even the darkness is not dark to you;
the night is bright as the day,
for darkness is as light with you.

2 Comments »

Pleading “Not Guilty” to Murder, Torture, Cruelty

Posted by TulipGirl | Under Pearls / TTUAC / NGJ Saturday Mar 20, 2010

Kevin and Elizabeth Schatz have each been charged with “Felony 187(a) PC MURDER;” “Felony 206 PC TORTURE W/ S.A. 12022.7(a) 1192.7(C)(8);” and Misdemeanor (A) 273a(b) PC CRUELTY TO CHILD BY INFLICTING INJURY” according to the Superior Court of California, County of Butte.

On Thursday, 3/18/10, they were in court and each pleaded “not guilty.” You can read the news stories from the Chico Enterprise Record and the Oroville Mercury Register.

(Note: In some news stories Kevin Schatz is being referred to as Kenneth Schatz, but the legal records are in the name of Kevin Paul Schatz.)

According to the above news stories, Michael Harvey, defense attorney for Kevin Schatz, has stated the parents are “heartbroken and still in shock over this tragedy… We have heard what the district attorney has said and is saying, and we are exploring extensively other explanations for the death of this child… This is a close-knit family of nine and for the past 16 years.”

Attorney Kevin Sears is representing Elizabeth Schatz, said states he is continuing to “aggressively investigate,” but is not commenting yet.

DA Michael Ramsey explained the autopsy on Lydia Schatz showed she died from “blunt force trauma” and that they pathologist reported “multiple whip-like striations between the child’s lower back and knees.” The autopsy shows there was a rapid breakdown of muscle tissue which leads to damage to the kidneys and other organs.

According to the news article, “Ramsey said some the couple’s six biological children told investigators of being chastised by their parents with a quarter-inch rubber or plastic “plumbing supply line” that was found in the ridge home, along with a book written by a fundamentalist religious group in Tennessee [Michael Pearl of No Greater Joy Ministries] which espoused using the device to help train children to be more obedient to God and their parents. “The older daughter indicated that they did follow that as a discipline philosophy in the family,” the district attorney said.”

Later in the article, “Dr. Thomas Resk, the county medical examiner, concluded the younger girl died from “multiple complications caused by blunt-force trauma to the muscles and soft-tissue … resulting in the release of the injured cell content into the bloodstream” and damaging her heart, kidneys and other organs. … Asked whether the child had any prior health problems that could have contributed to her death, Ramsey said that “other than prior scarring … we know of none.”

I do not know what the legal strategies will be for DA Ramsey or the attorneys for the Schatz parents. I do not excuse or justify or pass off the responsibility that Kevin and Elizabeth Schatz hold as the ones who “disciplined” their child to death.

And neither will I excuse Michael and Debi Pearl. They may not be legally responsible for the death of Lydia Schatz, but morally, ethically? Michael and Debi Pearl seek to influence parents. They do not teach “beat your child until she dies.” They DO teach to train (spank, whip) until they child is completely submitted, to use a “rod” of plumbing supply line, a “switch” or even a “belt or tree branch;” that a parent ought to defeat a child totally with no mercy; and that 5, 10, 15 or more strikes may be needed; may be needed over a period of hours or even days. These teachings are rife throughout their published writings online and in books. People, these teachings are abhorrent! These are not “Biblical” in the least, as much as the Pearls may like to label them so!

Michael and Debi Pearl may not intend to teach abuse, but their words and their philosophy lead to a logical conclusion of actions which are abusive. And in the end, as people who seek influence, they are responsible for what they communicate and how they communicate it.

Lord, have mercy on us all.

32 Comments »

Lydia’s Birthday, Autopsy Released

Posted by TulipGirl | Under Christianity and the Church, Pearls / TTUAC / NGJ Tuesday Mar 16, 2010

Lydia Schatz would have been eight years old today, had she not died last month.

Her autopsy was released today. My heart is hurting, again.

On Tuesday (3/16/10), the autopsy results were released. The coroner’s report shows Kevin and Elizabeth Schatz’s 7 year old daughter died from Rhabdomyolsis.

The condition is a rapid breakdown of muscle tissue that releases by-products into the bloodstream, damaging the kidneys. Prosecutors say the girl’s parents repeatedly hit her with a plastic pipe as a form of punishment. The couple’s 11 year old daughter was also hospitalized with kidney damage but has since recovered.

–NBC, KNVN

In summary, rhabdomyolysis describes how Lydia’s body received repeated strikes to the point her muscle tissue started to break down. The body could not cope with the tissue breakdown.

Rhabdomyolysis occurs when there is damage to the skeletal muscle.

The injured muscle cell leaks myoglobin (a protein) into the blood stream. Myoglobin can be directly toxic to kidney cells, and it can impair and clog the filtration system of the kidney. Both mechanisms can lead to kidney failure, which is the major complication of rhabdomyolysis.

Significant muscle injury can cause fluid and electrolyte shifts from the bloodstream into the damaged muscle cells, and in the other direction (from the damaged muscle cells into the bloodstream). As a result, dehydration may occur. Elevated levels of potassium in the bloodstream (hyperkalemia) may be associated with heart rhythm disturbances and sudden cardiac death due to ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation.

Related resources here, and here.

Father, in heaven, have mercy.

42 Comments »

Jesus, Not a Parenting Method

Posted by TulipGirl | Under GFI / Ezzo / Babywise, Mommy-Inspiration Files, Pearls / TTUAC / NGJ Tuesday Mar 16, 2010

For the mommy-inspiration files, from katiekind:

And lastly, and I say this gently, as the parent of grown kids, knowing *insert parenting guru* is also the parent of grown kids: we have wonderful children — he does, I’m sure — and so do I.

But without even knowing his children I can know this about them: they are not perfect. They hurt. They make mistakes. They struggle. They are prideful and overly simplistic at times; and crippled by shame and hesitancy at others. Yes — they are beautiful examples of human beings, his children (I assume), and mine (I know.) But they are not perfect. If they were, they would not be human.

If it were possible to raise children to perfection, then God would have sent a parenting method, not Jesus.

Our marching orders are not to raise our children by a method to be like *insert parenting guru* children. Our marching orders are to be Christians to and with our children.

7 Comments »

Good Desire, Bad Theology, Worse Practice

Posted by TulipGirl | Under Christianity and the Church, Mommy-Inspiration Files, Pearls / TTUAC / NGJ Saturday Mar 13, 2010

“Sadly, good desire is wrapped in bad theology and worse practice. Sin can no more be beaten out of a child as it can be beaten out of you and me. The only thing that frees us is the Gospel, the fresh wind of grace, the kindness and mercy of God. That is what we must show our children and embrace ourselves.”

Please read all of Pastor Greenwald’s article in the Bradenton Herald, There is No Such Thing as Perfect Obedience.

2 Comments »

Still Following Rainbows

Posted by TulipGirl | Under Family Journal Saturday Mar 13, 2010

She never minds the weather
She likes the flashes of light
I say “Love, beware black skies”
She’s not afraid of winter
Or thunderous nights
She follows rainbows in my eyes

I’ve known Hubby for over half my life now. . . What a wild ride it has been. Still, I know the Lord has been the one navigating our journey and so that has helped me (most times) feel peaceful in the midst of uncertainty, willing to wait while facing change.

And now. . . so exciting! Another adventure, a new destination in our journey. Hubby has been offered a job that has been in the works for quite awhile, a job which will most likely take us overseas again. We’re thrilled. . . Hubby and me, all of the boys. . . I know that the excitement and the adventure won’t shield us from the struggles of transition. We aren’t immune to homesickness, struggles in leaving relationships behind and beginning new ones. Yet we are willing and ready, trusting God to direct our steps.

7 Comments »

Speaking Out, Updated. . .

Posted by TulipGirl | Under Christianity and the Church, Pearls / TTUAC / NGJ Saturday Mar 6, 2010

“Give justice to the weak and the fatherless;
maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute.
Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”

Psalm 82:3-4

It has been one month since Lydia Schatz died while being “disciplined” by her parents who were influenced by Michael and Debi Pearl.

I’m made a modest attempt at tracking who is speaking up in their local communities. While in this medium it is easier to list those who are vocal online, I continue to hear good reports about local churches, homeschool groups, and parent-to-parent warnings about the teachings of Michael and Debi Pearl.

Please continue to share in this thread those you have heard in your churches, homeschool groups, online groups and in person, warning about the harmful teachings of Michael and Debi Pearl.

I would especially like to know of in-person conversations, local homeschool groups, pastors and other church leaders who are speaking out.

If you don’t see something listed, please let me know. . . and sometimes I do get a little behind in posting updates.

Thank you for speaking up for those who cannot speak for themselves, calling for justice for the fatherless, defending the weak.

Pastors

Matthew Raley, Tritone Life: Is Michael Pearl Responsible For a Girl’s Death?
Michael Pearl Responds to His Critics
Sermon: Pray for Your Role (addresses the Lydia Schatz tragedy)
Senior pastor of the Evangelical Free Church in Orland, CA

Randy Greenwald: Hermeneutics, Life, and Death
There is No Such Thing as Perfect Obedience
Pastor, homeschool father of six, Florida

Jim West: A Follow Up On An Earlier Post: The Dilettantes Are Depraved
Pastor and scholar, Tennessee

Wade Burleson, When Child Training Leaves to Abuse and Murder: Pearls of Wisdom for Concerned Parents
Baptist pastor, Oklahoma

Mark Jackson, aka pastor guy: Parenting is Hard
Pastor, California

Christian Media, Other Media

Bradenton Herald: There is No Such Thing as Perfect Obedience

World Magazine Commentary: To Brainwash a Parent
Evangelical, conservative news magazine

Religion News Blog
Kevin and Elizabeth Schatz Archives
Michael and Debi Pearl Archives
No Greater Joy Ministries Archives

Home Education Magazine: Bring Back the Boycott
And Micheal Pearl Laughs…
And Michael Pearl Laughs… Ctd.
Homeschool magazine since 1984

Benediction: Michael and Debi Pearl Linked to Another Child Abuse Death
Canadian, Christian, broadcast journalist

Virginia, Come, Weary Moms: Child Discipline or Child Abuse?
Adding Your Voices about Child Abuse
Mother of ten, publisher of Hope Chest Home School News

Don Veinot, Midwest Christian Outreach
In e-mail newsletter, no article online yet

Authors / Speakers

Karen Campbell, ThatMom: Child Abuse in the Name of Jesus
Update on Lydia Schatz and Why It Is Not About Spanking
Pearls and Authoritarian Parenting
An Open Letter to my Brothers and Sisters in Christ Who Serve in Leadership to Homeschooling Families
Michael Pearl’s Response
So Does Michael Pearl Bear Any Responsibility for the Death of Lydia Schatz?
Peoria Area Homeschooling Group Has Removed Pearl Book From Resource List
Homeschool mom, grandmother, conference speaker, podcaster

Samuel Martin
Religious Scholar

C. L. Dyck, Scita > Scienda: Parenting in the Name of God
Life Led Learning: Child Deaths and Christian Homeschooling (first of a series analyzing the Pearls teachings)
Homeschool mom, author, editor, teacher

Karen Ehman: Box Bashing
Homeschool mom, author, speaker

Barbara Curtis, MommyLife: Lydia Schatz: shame on Mike and Debi Pearl!
Michael Pearl Laughs at His Critics, No Apology for Dead Children
Growing Outrage at Michael Pearl and his Response to Child’s Death
Cult Characteristics and the Pearls
Mike and Debi Pearl: Sample Wisdom
Mom of 12 (bio, adopted and special needs), grandma of 10, author and Montessori teacher

Angel, Rutledge6: Tragic Death of Lydia Schatz
Author of “Liberian Adoption: Preparing for Your Child’s Homecoming”

Megan, SortaCrunchy: When Extremists are Taken to the Extreme
Mom, author, editor-in-chief of Simple Kids

Elizabeth Esther: How Many More Children Must Die?
Mother, Writer, grew up in abusive fundamentalist church

Karen Braun, Spunky Homeschool: Senseless Deception
Homeschool mom of 6, freelance writer, homeschool advocate

Hillary, Quivering Daughters: How Many More Little Girls Need to Die?
Heartbroken
Author of “Quivering Daughters | When Jesus Weeps ~ True Stories of Women, Authoritarianism, and the Fundamentalist Life”

Donna Fawcett, comments about Pearl parenting
Veteran homeschool mom, author of “Thriving in the Homeschool”

Emotional Abuse and Your Faith: Lydia, The Child the Pearls Laughed At

Homeschool Suppliers

Timberdoodle Co.: Discipline and Murder
Homeschool supply company

Home Education Magazine: Bring Back the Boycott
Homeschool magazine since 1984

Rob Shearer: Tragedy in a Homeschooling Family
Homeschool father of 11 children, church elder, Director of the Francis Schaeffer Study Center, co-founder of Greenleaf Press homeschool materials publisher

Homeschool Moms

Kathy, Quiet Garden: When Parenting Kills – What Can We Do?
Christian Ethics in Parenting
When Parenting Kills – Update
When Parenting Kills – A Challenge to Men
More Christians Speaking Out Against the Pearls
Michael Pearl Responds
When Parenting Kills: A Teachable Moment
A Succinct Review of To Train Up a Child by Michael & Debi Pearl
Homeschool veteran, mentor, website designer

Carol, Parenting Freedom: Murder by Discipline
Murdering Children into Submission
Homeschool mom, researcher

Karen Ehman: Box Bashing
Homeschool mom, author, speaker

Sparrow’s Nest Academy: I’m Burning All the Books by the Pearls
Homeschool mom of seven

Debra, Random Thoughts: Another Death Attributed to the Pearls
Michael Pearl Answering His Critics
Spare The Rod And A Thank You
My Comments On Michael Pearl’s Post
Rebekah’s Dreaming Awake Blog
Rebekah Pearl Part One — Her Childhood
Homeschool mom of four

Virginia, Come, Weary Moms: Child Discipline or Child Abuse?
Adding Your Voices about Child Abuse
Mother of ten, publisher of Hope Chest Home School News

Karen Braun, Spunky Homeschool: Senseless Deception
Homeschool mom of 6, freelance writer, homeschool advocate

Anne, Muse Mama: Bring Back the Boycott
Fighting the Pearls’ Teachings
The Value of Gentle Mothering
The Pearls are Wrong
Giving Up on To Train Up A Child
Still Thinking about Little Lydia
A Response to Michael Pearl
Homeschool mom, nurse, tried and rejected the Pearls’ teachings

Lisa, HomeSpun Life: Fundamental Discipline
Time to Speak Up, Even if it is Hard
Homeschool mom, former Pearl supporter

Smith Soup: From Another Mamma with a Heart for Liberia
Christian, Mom to 14 adopted and bio- children

Betsy, Just Another Clay Pot: Christian Brainwashing?
The World’s Most Dangerous People
Homeschool mom

Dana, Roscommon Acres: The Pearls, Abuse, and a False Gospel
In Defense of the Pearls: Some Thoughts
Homeschool mom of five

Elizabeth Esther: How Many More Children Must Die?
Mother, Writer, grew up in abusive fundamentalist church

Anne, Birth in Ukraine
Missionary, Homeschool mom, birth educator

Valerie, Happy as Kings: On the Death of Lydia Schatz, 8
Photographer, Homeschool mom

Mama Says: Quick Takes #4
Homeschool mom of 8

Jackie, My Three Little Lights: Speaking Up and Speaking Out
Homeschool mom of 3, pastor’s wife

Vyckie, No Longer Qivering: No Greater Joy Ministries and Child Abuse
No Laughing Matter: Michael Pearl & His Chicken Mock Critics

Therese, Keeping Along Joyfully: Christian Homeschoolers, Please Read

Eight is NOT Enough: An Open Letter

Donna Fawcett, comments about Pearl parenting
Veteran homeschool mom, author of “Thriving in the Homeschool”

Kimberly, Raising Olives: The Pearls and Your Child’s Heart

The Journey: This is the Reason Why, In Jesus Name

WaterLilly: Spanking in Anger Isn’t the Problem
WaterLilly: Michael Pearl Laughs at Critics

Myrrh, Savouring Grace: Calling All Christian Families and Those Who Minister to Them

Hippie Housewife: Disciplined to Death

The Cappuccino Life: The Pearls, Sadly it has Come to This. . .

T-Bear, Contemplations of an Unconventional Christian: Mobilizing the Largely Silent Majority

MamaChesire: Without Breath to Complain

MiaZagora’s Homeschool Minutes: Michael and Debi Pearl Books and Child Abuse

Homeschool Dads

Randy Greenwald: Hermeneutics, Life, and Death
Pastor, homeschool father of six

Arni, I Think I Believe: Why I Will Never Spank My Daughter
Father, theology student, musician

Rey Reynoso, The Bible Archive: To Train Up A Child: An Examination of the Pearl Method
Father, artist, programmer, writer, preacher

Homeschool Groups

Bradenton SHARE: Support Homeschool Activities Reaching Everyone
Detailed e-mail to all members and friends

Peoria APACHE: Association of Peoria Area Christian Home Educators
Removed recommendation for No Greater Joy from website

Other Friends of Homeschoolers / Families

Paul Mathers: In Which I Talk About the Terrible Event
Quoted in Salon, knows the Schatz family

Laurie, Beauty for Ashes: In Which I Speak the Unspeakable
Knows the Schatz family

API Speaks: Parent Support is Prevention
Attachment Parenting International official blog

Glenn Chatfield, Watchman’s Bagpipes: To Train Up a Child
To Train Up A Child, Follow Up

GCM Statement: It is Time to Speak Out Against the Teachings of Michael and Debi Pearl

Judy, Wanna Walk Along: Even a Child Can Recognize Injustice
Popular, Pervasive, Controversial
Abhorrence Hits Me
Grandmother, Christian

Luci: Hold Fast

Dr. Momma, Peaceful Parenting:
No Greater Joy Ministries “Biblical” Parenting Couple Beats Child to Death

Monica, Attachment Mama: Why Parenting Support is So Critical

Linda, Parent at the Helm: Speaking Up

Aaron, Must Follow: Christians Unite Against Child Abuse

Motherhood is. . . A Matter That Needs More Attention

Jessica, Everyday Rebel: Woman, Uncensored

It’s Complicated: I Don’t Want To Write This Post

Laird and His Momma: Horror

The Greek Chorus, Sweeping the Cobwebs: Pearl Laughing All the Way to the Bank

Jay Allen, The Zero Boss: Michael and Debi Pearl’s “Expert” Parenting Advice is Killing Children

.

Websites:
Why Not Train A Child
No Greater Joy Children: Raising Children Without Damaging Their Spirit

On Twitter:

@elizabethesther
@clergygir1
@SamLundmark
@LadyHawkeyes
@NoQuivering
@sifilings
@devaskyla
@Tweet2Kay
@quiveringdaught
@rynthetyn
@LexiBadger
@ParentattheHelm
@MotheringByGrac
@ProLifeBlogs
@okiebelle
@smrtlernins
@tbone323
@SusanneBarrett
@ericpazdziora
@J4STUDIOS
@Ponteelcinturon
@magicandmayhem
@nolamom76
@MarinCountyMom
@Quiet_Daisy
@writingmomof3
@dana_wilson
@thezeroboss
@1WhiteStone
@roannawilson
@TheMuseMama
@TimberdoodleCo
@lynncorinne
@megandunham
@bryangumpy
@daysINmyShoes
@undegaussable
@JasonBlair
@HealyMonster
@ChristineMMTTM
@gideonstrauss
@stldenise
@Jalenagraham
@jillduvall
@ExaminerWriter2
@writingfriends
@myhomemyschool
@lifeledlearning
@fourgreenis
@merhia_SAHM_PDX
@Principled
@Jalenagraham
@hollycraw

This post is in progress. It will continue to be updated, although I know it isn’t possible to have a completely comprehensive list. If I’ve left you off, let me know! Also, here is another site where related links are being compiled.

12 Comments »

Who Is Speaking Out Against Abuse?

Posted by TulipGirl | Under Christianity and the Church, Pearls / TTUAC / NGJ Sunday Feb 28, 2010

“Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves,
for the rights of all who are destitute.
Speak up and judge fairly;
defend the rights of the poor and needy.”

–Proverbs 31:8-9

I know many people have been vocal in the past. Yet I believe a renewed effort–even warning against specific teachings and teachers–is warranted.

This outcry has already started, as observed by Lynn Harris in Salon:

It’s one thing for those of us outside the fundamentalist Christian/Christian home-schooling world to point fingers at the Pearls and voice outrage at their methods. What really matters, and what stands to have actual impact, is the outrage inside the Pearls’ world. And right now, more than ever, an anti-Pearl movement within the conservative Christian community is rising up in heated, if sometimes whispered, fury. Some say — even pray — that Lydia Schatz’s death will bring Michael and Debi Pearl exactly the kind of attention they deserve.

Already many homeschool parents and leaders are speaking out, especially raising red flags about the teachings of Michael and Debi Pearl of No Greater Joy Ministries.

In a modest effort to track those who are speaking out, would you please share in this thread those you have heard in your churches, homeschool groups, in person, and online homeschool groups?

Those who are issuing warnings:

World Magazine Commentary: To Brainwash a Parent
Evangelical, conservative news magazine

Timberdoodle Co.: Discipline and Murder
Homeschool supply company

Bradenton SHARE: Support Homeschool Activities Reaching Everyone
Detailed e-mail to all members and friends

Home Education Magazine: Bring Back the Boycott
Homeschool magazine since 1984

Matthew Raley, Tritone Life: Is Michael Pearl Responsible For a Girl’s Death?
Senior pastor of the Evangelical Free Church in Orland, CA

Karen Ehman: Box Bashing
Homeschool mom, author, speaker

Randy Greenwald: Hermeneutics, Life, and Death
Pastor, homeschool father of six

Samuel Martin
Religious Scholar

Barbara Curtis, MommyLife: Lydia Schatz: shame on Mike and Debi Pearl!
Michael Pearl Laughs at His Critics, No Apology for Dead Children
Growing Outrage at Michael Pearl and his Response to Child’s Death
Cult Characteristics and the Pearls
Mom of 12 (bio, adopted and special needs), grandma of 10, author and Montessori teacher

Carol, Parenting Freedom: Murder by Discipline
Murdering Children into Submission
Homeschool mom, researcher

Angel, Rutledge6: Tragic Death of Lydia Schatz
Author of “Liberian Adoption: Preparing for Your Child’s Homecoming”

Megan, SortaCrunchy: When Extremists are Taken to the Extreme
Mom, author, editor-in-chief of Simple Kids

Elizabeth Esther: How Many More Children Must Die?
Mother, Writer, grew up in abusive fundamentalist church

Benediction: Michael and Debi Pearl Linked to Another Child Abuse Death
Canadian, Christian, broadcast journalist

API Speaks: Parent Support is Prevention
Attachment Parenting International official blog

Anne, Muse Mama: Bring Back the Boycott
Fighting the Pearls’ Teachings
The Value of Gentle Mothering
The Pearls are Wrong
Giving Up on To Train Up A Child
Homeschool mom, nurse, tried and rejected the Pearls’ teachings

Karen Braun, Spunky Homeschool: Senseless Deception
Homeschool mom of 6, freelance writer, homeschool advocate

Wade Burleson, When Child Training Leaves to Abuse and Murder: Pearls of Wisdom for Concerned Parents
Baptist pastor, Oklahoma

Anne, Birth in Ukraine
Missionary, Homeschool mom, birth educator

Arni, I Think I Believe: Why I Will Never Spank My Daughter
Father, theology student, musician

Paul Mathers: In Which I Talk About the Terrible Event
Quoted in Salon, knows the Schatz family

Laurie, Beauty for Ashes: In Which I Speak the Unspeakable
Knows the Schatz family

Sparrow’s Nest Academy: I’m Burning All the Books by the Pearls
Homeschool mom of seven

Debra, Random Thoughts: Another Death Attributed to the Pearls
Homeschool mom of four

Aaron, Must Follow: Christians Unite Against Child Abuse

Judy, Wanna Walk Along: Even a Child Can Recognize Injustice
Popular, Pervasive, Controversial
Abhorrence Hits Me
Grandmother, Christian

Lisa, HomeSpun Life: Fundamental Discipline
Time to Speak Up, Even if it is Hard
Homeschool mom, former Pearl supporter

Smith Soup: From Another Mamma with a Heart for Liberia
Christian, Mom to 14 adopted and bio- children

Betsy, Just Another Clay Pot: Christian Brainwashing?
The World’s Most Dangerous People
Homeschool mom

Virginia, Come, Weary Moms: Child Discipline or Child Abuse?
Adding Your Voices about Child Abuse
Mother of ten, publisher of Hope Chest Home School News

Dana, Roscommon Acres: The Pearls, Abuse, and a False Gospel
In Defense of the Pearls: Some Thoughts
Homeschool mom of five

The Journey: This is the Reason Why, In Jesus Name

WaterLilly: Spanking in Anger Isn’t the Problem
WaterLilly: Michael Pearl Laughs at Critics

Myrrh, Savouring Grace: Calling All Christian Families and Those Who Minister to Them

Hippie Housewife: Disciplined to Death

MamaChesire: Without Breath to Complain

MiaZagora’s Homeschool Minutes: Michael and Debi Pearl Books and Child Abuse

Vyckie, No Longer Qivering: No Greater Joy Ministries and Child Abuse
No Laughing Matter: Michael Pearl & His Chicken Mock Critics

Luci: Hold Fast

GCM Statement: It is Time to Speak Out Against the Teachings of Michael and Debi Pearl

Dr. Momma, Peaceful Parenting:
No Greater Joy Ministries “Biblical” Parenting Couple Beats Child to Death

Monica, Attachment Mama: Why Parenting Support is So Critical

Linda, Parent at the Helm: Speaking Up

Jessica, Everyday Rebel: Woman, Uncensored

Jay Allen, The Zero Boss: Michael and Debi Pearl’s “Expert” Parenting Advice is Killing Children

Therese, Keeping Along Joyfully: Christian Homeschoolers, Please Read

Eight is NOT Enough: An Open Letter

Kimberly, Raising Olives: The Pearls and Your Child’s Heart

No Greater Joy Children
New website analyzing NGJ teachings

Speaking out in the Local Community:

1. Local Homeschool Group: Intense warning to parents about the Pearl’s parenting materials

2. Greenville Church: Women’s group leader issuing warning about Pearl’s parenting materials

3. Women’s Bible study, discussion of this issue

4. Lindsey, Lutheran – Missouri Synod, homeschooling mom, speaking out online.

5. Sarah, Christian, supervisor for a local mental health agency in Arizaon, discussing with staff, recognizing similar language in parents and foster parents, devising best ways to address it.

6. A Virginia homeschool group removing all links to the Pearls / NGJ from their website.

7. Lots of emails and irl discussions. . .
.

Please list in the comments or email me with examples you are experiencing of homeschool parents, leaders, and pastors speaking out in your local communities or online.

This post is in progress. It will continue to be updated, although I know it isn’t possible to have a completely comprehensive list. If I’ve left you off, let me know!

40 Comments »

« Previous Entries

Pages

Search

Categories

Family Ties

Girly Friends

Mommy Inspiration

Pundits and Pastors

SRQ and Beyond

Think and Act

Web Goodies

Worldwide Wanderings

Archives

Around the World

Meta