When Friends Defend The Pearls
Posted by TulipGirl | Under Pearls / TTUAC / NGJ Tuesday Oct 11, 2011The Pearls have published a response to Hana Williams’s death. Unlike with Lydia Schatz, they are no longer laughing.
Parents who utilize and/or support No Greater Joy Ministries, Michael and Debi Pearl, or the book “To Train Up a Child” sometimes have trouble understanding how a book they find “helpful” can really be so harmful.
Common responses from these parents to the news of the abuse and deaths of Sean Paddock, Lydia Schatz, and Hana Williams are along these lines:
“We … have read “To Train Up a Child” and have actually gotten some good practical advice from it. I never interpreted them to be condoning child abuse, but simply giving practical ways to discipline (flicking the hand, never disciplining in anger, finding creative approaches, etc.) … I am certainly not condoning everything in Michael Pearl’s book, but I have a hard time blaming them for the terrible cases of child abuse done by other parents who claimed to follow Michael Pearl’s teaching. I think they disastrously misinterpreted the book.”
This is similar to the excuse the Pearls make themselves. . . it is never parents following their teachings who abuse — but parents who are NOT following their teachings.
In my experience, a lot of parents first read TTUAC with what a friend calls having a “good-mommy filter” on. . . only the positives come through in an initial reading (tying heartstrings, being consistent, etc.)
But, when parents are struggling or their children aren’t conforming, they go back to TTUAC. And what messages are found then? Consistency (which can be good), and beyond that a “parents-must-win-at-all-costs” message.
While this is just one quote, it illustrates a repeated theme in their writings,
“And hold him there until he is surrendered. Prove that you are bigger, tougher, more patiently enduring and are unmoved by his wailing. Defeat him totally. Accept no conditions for surrender. No compromise. You are to rule over him as a benevolent sovereign. Your word is final.”
from To Train Up a Child, by Michael and Debi Pearl
Chapter 6: Applying the Rod)
Defeat totally. No compromise.
Consistency.
Train through swatting (smacking, spanking, switching… different terms used in different places in the book. . . regardless, “training” uses an implement on a child’s skin to case pain.)
It doesn’t take long to see that if a child is not “easily” trained and compliant immediately, a parent trying to do the “right” thing will be led by the Pearls’ teachings and philosophy to abuse.
A child who doesn’t understand, doesn’t comply, or isn’t submissive right away. . . A parent is taught to be consistent, defeat totally, continue spanking/swatting/smacking. . .
In this context, can you see how easily the Pearls’ teachings can lead to abuse?
I’ve know parents. . . loving, well-meaning, dear parents. . . Parents who never spanked in anger. . . who got to the point where they saw they were ABUSING their children (in love. . . with good intentions) because of this underlying theme of consistency and total defeat.
Does this help make sense of why some people are very upset and alarmed about a resource some parents only remember as helpful?
Good and related resources:
Spanking in Anger Isn’t the Problem
In Defense of the Pearls. . . Some Thoughts
Why Blame the Pearls at All?
I posted a link to Rey Reynoso’s overview of the book on Facebook yesterday. I have a feeling I may have thus alienated my oldest friend (who seems to think that because I don’t have children I can’t speak on the issue). I wish so much that I could make her (and her family who raised her this way) see the danger and abuse to both children and parents. Because, seriously, how is it not abusive to the very soul of a parent to belittle them into searing their conscience to the cries and needs of their children?
Anyway. Thank you for this.
That’s hard, Stitching Seams. I look back at my younger self (married with kids) and just absolutely horrid I was to my oldest friend and just CRINGE and my pride and (unintended) unkindness.
[...] TulipGirl responds to Michael Pearl’s Response to the death of Hanna Williams in When Friends Defend The Pearls. [...]
Very well said! I love the “good mommy filter” explanation!
I am one of those “few” with children who did not take to this sort of “discipline”. Even though I agreed and followed it to the “T”, my children *never* responded they way that they were supposed to respond. This further heaped on the outright panic and guilt. I remember taking my small child (2 yo or so) to a friend and asking her to check his backside, as I feared I had bruised him (it was a bike accident, in fact). Yes, I had completely panicked about the fact that I thought I had bruised him with my well-intentioned application of what I had learned (and, it hadn’t changed a thing). And, I am not a stupid person, I don’t think. It is the very strong underlying message of “control at ALL costs, or you WILL lose your child forever” that drives the parent, fear and panic, not love. Now, obviously this does not apply to everyone. But, everyone is DIFFERENT, parent and child. And they will interpret these things through their experiences and their existing knowledge and their own perspective. This makes this sort of “discipline” NOT applicable to everyone, across the board. And, if in fact there are “alternatives” (such as he says, say with disabled children, etc.), then WHY stoop to physical striking anyway? The very ACT of a physical strike has anger as its motivating force. . . . there is not a normal person in the world that can deliberately perform an act of violence to another without this emotion, in some form or other, being present. I have seen, with my own eyes, people that “discipline” in this way, and EVERY TIME, whether or not they admitted it, I SAW ANGER. Anger at what the child did. EVERY time. No, they will not admit it, just like I did not (“I am angry at the child’s actions, not the child.”, “I did calm down.” (NOT), etc.) I do believe that an adult is ultimately responsible for the choices they make. . . . but, I also think that there are people out there who are so blinded by their zeal to have a “perfect” child, that they are ripe for just about any sort of teaching on the subject, which is why the teachers need to be very careful with what they share. And, personally, I believe that people who follow his teaching really do believe that they and their children are stupid and slow and will never amount to anything if they do not ‘listen’ to him. (Just look at that Facebook status, as he insults those that do not believe as he does. . . . he outright says that nothing will come of their children.)
Jambo! Thanks for stopping by my blog. So cool you were in Kiev and now in Kenya. I’m in Mozambique but visited Kiev! (Except for right now as I am in the US for a visit.) I appreciate your thoughtful writings on the Pearls and am very curious about your stance on the Ezzos and will be reading up on that as well. Blessings, Laura
I know I’ve said this before, but the problem with the Pearls’ teaching is that it is built on a rotten theological foundation, which is legalism. That there may be some good ideas in the book is irrelevant. It is not based in the the grace and gospel of Christ. It is easy to make legalism, i.e the law, appear successful because it can shape outward behavior. Only the gospel can reform and change the heart. Legalism, if it is “successful,” produces well-behaved Pharisees, which should make us, as Christian parents tremble.
And, boy, this is a tiny little box with small print!
Excellent post… you are so right!
Thank you for speaking out on this with so much wisdom and grace.