« A Day Away From Sanctified | Main | Overheard, Mockingbird »


July 17, 2005

Ezzo Week 2005 Round-Up

Gary Ezzo's 2005 Alumni and Leadership Conference at this church in South Carolina ended this weekend. Reportedly, over 300 people from all over the world were in attendance to be trained. I haven't yet seen an article or blog post about the conference, but am interested in feedback from attendees or an official report from the Ezzos.

Interestingly, Gary and Anne Marie's home church, Seacoast, didn't host this conference or publicize it online. (Seacoast Church and the head pastor several pastors, Geoff Surratt, Chris Surratt, Shawn Wood, have their own blogs.) I wonder how they reconcile the fact that Gary Ezzo still has unresolved church discipline issues still lingering, from the last two churches he attended?

Speaking of. . . On the fairly new Pyromaniac blog, Phil Johnson mentiones "shady" Gary Ezzo in yesterday's post. Considering he has firsthand experience Gary Ezzo and even wrote the Grace Community Church statement of non-endorsement, I wonder whether he's going to continue to help enlighten the evangelical community about Ezzo's faulty teachings? Thanks, Phil, for joining in Ezzo Week 2005 blogging.

Ezzo-related blogging this week:
Yellow Rose has posted a series from the old GFI Forums.
Conversations 1 * Conversations 2 * Conversations 3 * Conversations 4 * Conversations 5 * Conversations 6 * Conversations 7

Maternity Genes mentioned Ezzo specifically in a post more generally about "Cry It Out," and got quite extensive responses.

Christine asserts God is wise. . . Ezzo not so much!

The Seven Realms questions whether Anyone Has a Millstone?

Mama Domain makes some controversial comments--and doesn't limit them to just Gary Ezzo.

Ellen reigns her new path as a stay-at-home-mom with the decision to wing it--not wise it.

The RE's Muse is struggling with whether to follow the Babywise advice, and to what degree. She calls herself a "new mom with no clue." Ezzo is very appealing to new mamas in that he offers confident and certain advice, and promises happy results.

Hank and family are thankful they get to go to the GFI Conference, and mention how it was a blessing---though it required great faith to leave their special-needs baby with other caregivers.

Christian offers a positive book review of Babywise, but with a caveat.

Metamorphosis isn't looking forward to the new GKGW class--and feels like she ought to be.

Bravus and Suze like the Ezzo's principled approach to politeness training. Ezzo's words can sound good, but looking at his pattern of behaviour, well. . .


And as mentioned earlier this week:
Fresh Milk Delivered Daily: Beneath the Stains of Time the Feelings Disappear
SandKsMama: Growing Kids Gary's Way
KatieKind
: Prep Transcripts
Reasons Why: Ezzo and the Shy Child

Any I've missed? Please let me know!


And so this wraps up Ezzo Week 2005--unless we end up doing an Aussie version at the end of September. . . Feel free to join the ongoing conversations at AwareParent.Net and the PP Ezzo Board.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Spacer

Posted by TulipGirl  |  07:57 PM|  TrackBack (0)  |   Words

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.tulipgirl.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/788

Spacer
Comments

As always, you've done an excellent "wrap up" of everyone who is out there blogging. I applaud you for recognizing those who are "pro Ezzo" as well. Hopefully they will come out for the debate!

Posted by: Yellow Rose Mom at July 17, 2005 09:31 PM

*Applause* Good job this week.

Posted by: Missy at July 17, 2005 10:04 PM

TulipGirl,

I would like to add just a couple of comments to set the record straight. Our senior pastor at Seacoast is Greg Surratt and not his brother Geoff. Greg does not have a blog that I am aware of at this time. You make it sound like Seacoast was approached about hosting the GFI conference. I do not know whether Seacoast was approached or not. I am pretty sure you probably do not know that either. I certainly would not have put Seacoast at the top of my list of choices for this event for a couple of reasons. (1)Seacoast is in a different city and on the other side of a river from historic downtown Charleston where the conference was held. (2)There are no hotels within walking distance of Seacoast.

My wife and I had not left or son's side together for this length of time since his birth including the two months plus of hospitalizations he has endured in the short eight and a half months of his life. We do believe that this conference was well worth taking that big of a step of faith for the first time since Caden's birth. I believe Caden’s Page gives a clear picture as to why I "required great faith" to leave my child with others.

Thanks for the links to Caden's Page. God has touched many lives through Caden's story. I am sure there will be many more.

Posted by: Hank Osborne at July 17, 2005 10:20 PM

Hank!

It's good to see you.

I really, really hope you didn't take my comment as critical, about the new experience of leaving Caden with others. It wasn't written with that in mind--I was just acknowledging what you said--it took a lot of faith to go ahead and entrust his care to others while you were not within easy access to him.

Thank you for the clarification on Geoff / Greg Surratt.

Posted by: TulipGirl at July 18, 2005 07:58 AM

Well done, TulipGirl. I am so thankful you are using past pain for such good. Keep up the good work. Be encouraged in the Lord.

Posted by: Carol at July 18, 2005 08:07 AM

TulipGirl,

I read your article as being very bias. Your posting falls WAY short of offering both sides of the GFI debate. You never even refer to the GFI.org web site directly. You also never refer to the conference by its real title. The first sentence of your article shows bias by calling the conference by the wrong name. Even when you tried to add a positive when mentioning the book review of Babywise you could not stop at just referring to the article and letting it speak for itself. Yes, the author of that review stated that she did not agree with everything in the book. Is that really a caveat? I think not. I read it as simply a thinking parent who took what worked for her and then moved on, after going through the trouble of writing a positive review. Oh yeah, please note that the "caveat" was written before the Babywise book review and was NOT written in reference to any single parenting book or style.

I did take your comments as critical. I have seen enough on your site to know that you have very strong opinions against GFI and the authors of the material. I have a hard time reading anything you write referring to GFI, its authors, or its supporters as being anything other than critical.

You do a fine job of stating what and who you stand against. I do not find this type of article to be loving and nurturing towards those parents who might be in search of answers to difficult parenting issues. The argument can be made that it is important and loving to warn people against things that you oppose. That argument falls way short of sharing what you think parents should do.

Posted by: Hank Osborne at July 18, 2005 11:15 AM

I was wondering if you could offer any advice on getting husbands on the gentle parenting bandwagon. My husband was raised in a somewhat ezzo-ish fashion and trying to change some of his firmly held beliefs has been a battle.

Posted by: Paige at July 18, 2005 12:05 PM

Hank,

It is very understandable that you don't like what I post. You view Ezzo's teachings as positive to the extent that you teach the classes. I understand--I was there, too. I remember when I was first exposed to criticism of Ezzo's teachings. I thought that they just didn't understand--didn't understand most of all how much Ezzo parents truly loved their children and were so actively devoted to raising them in a Christian home.

I thought that only those who didn't "get it" about wanting to parent from a Christian worldview were criticizing Ezzo and his teachings.

I was wrong.

You wrote, I did take your comments as critical. I have seen enough on your site to know that you have very strong opinions against GFI and the authors of the material. I have a hard time reading anything you write referring to GFI, its authors, or its supporters as being anything other than critical.

You are right, in that I do have strong opinions about the GFI materials and Gary Ezzo's unwillingness to take responsibility for his teachings.

On the other hand, I would encourage you to look through the Ezzo/GFI/Babywise archives here. I don't think you will find that I havecriticized parents who use these materials. I have not been harsh nor judgemental about parents who have implemented these materials in their home. I have been straightforward about the problems I see in these materials. But I have clearly stated, again and again, that Ezzo parents love their children and are characterized by being highly motivated to be actively involved in their parenting. This is a good thing! (And to be honest, it is this love and involvement that I believe accounts for the "success" Ezzo parents see--not Ezzo's ideas. . .)

Like I said, I understand that you do not view my Ezzo-related posting positively. I know it feels like a personal criticism--anything about parenting is quickly taken to heart, isn't it? Yet your love and devotion for your boys is apparent, and I regret that you have felt my concerns about Ezzo's teachings have been a personal criticism of you and your family.

Posted by: TulipGirl at July 18, 2005 09:04 PM

Hank,

There are a few things you mentioned that I believe warrant clarification.

You wrote, "I read your article as being very bias. Your posting falls WAY short of offering both sides of the GFI debate.

You are right. I am biased. I have seen way too many parents and children harmed by Ezzo's teachings to be in any way unbiased. I do recognize there are parents who are pleased, at least for a time, with the Ezzo teachings. I have never pretened to offer "both sides" of the Ezzo debate. However, in this post I have linked to all the current posts in the blogosphere about Gary Ezzo/Babywise, both pro and con. I have not intentionally left any out, on either side. If you are aware of some posts that I've overlooked, I invite you to add the links here in the comments. As you may have noticed, I am quick to amend omissions here when they are pointed out.


You wrote, You never even refer to the GFI.org web site directly. You also never refer to the conference by its real title. The first sentence of your article shows bias by calling the conference by the wrong name.

In my original Ezzo Week 2005 post, I both linked to the conference page on the GFI site and used the "correct" name: National Leadership & Alumni Conference. I'm suprised you took offense at the inversion of Alumni and Leadership in this post.

In several of my Ezzo Week 2005 posts, I've linked to the GFI site. In the post Babywise and Breastfeeding: The Realities, I linked directly to Ezzo's explanation of why he dismisses the pattern of low milk supply and low weight gain often associated with his teachings.

You wrote, "Even when you tried to add a positive when mentioning the book review of Babywise you could not stop at just referring to the article and letting it speak for itself. Yes, the author of that review stated that she did not agree with everything in the book. Is that really a caveat? . . . Oh yeah, please note that the "caveat" was written before the Babywise book review and was NOT written in reference to any single parenting book or style."

Like I said, I wasn't trying to be "unbiased" or offer something positive to be balanced--I was doing a round up of all the recent Ezzo blogging. You may not see the disclaimer the reviewer wrote as a "caveat"--I did. Perhaps it is because of some positive, private correspondence we had before either of those posts were written.

I do agree with what you said about the reviewer, as you said, "took what worked for her and then moved on." I've found mothers who are happiest with Babywise are the ones who state that they've modified it the most. That's not what I've seen in the Christian Prep/ATIW circles, but is what I've seen among Babywise users.


You wrote, "I did take your comments as critical. . . . I have a hard time reading anything you write referring to . . . its supporters as being anything other than critical."

Again, Hank, I want to say again that my intention was not to be critical of you or your wife, nor of your decision to attend the GFI conference. Honestly, I was touched by your description of struggle/faith as you allowed Caden to be cared for by others, and how they realized the work and devotion that his care requires. I do understand, however, that considering that you lead GFI classes and I am not positive about GFI, you might not "hear" that positive tone in my post.

You wrote, " I do not find this type of article to be loving and nurturing towards those parents who might be in search of answers to difficult parenting issues. The argument can be made that it is important and loving to warn people against things that you oppose. That argument falls way short of sharing what you think parents should do."

You are right, Hank. This particular post has very little in it for struggling parents. In this series, I didn't focus on that much, though I hope that the Breastfeeding: Practicalities would be helpful to Ezzo mamas who who desire to breastfeed. And I thought that SandKsMama's post and the link to Voices of Experience would be helpful for parents who are struggling. I know it helped me to hear other mothers talk about the good and the hard, when I was recognizing some mistakes I've made.

Posted by: TulipGirl at July 18, 2005 09:26 PM

And honestly, Hank, I don't want to come across as if I have all the answers. I surely don't. Each day of parenting, each day of living, is a day in which I need God and His grace, moment by moment. I mess up. Royally, some days. I don't have all the answers.

But I used to think I did. And then I found out I was wrong. The answers I thought I had were causing more harm than the good I kept telling people they were.

I think I PM'd you the link of our experiences with Ezzo, Confessions of a Failed Babywiser. If you haven't read it, I'd like to invite you to do so. Maybe you'll see the mistakes I made, and avoid them--whether you continue to lead GFI classes or not.

Grace and peace,
TulipGirl

Posted by: TulipGirl at July 18, 2005 09:29 PM

Hey TGirl!

I reposted my Ezzo post (and updated it, linking to your post). However, I also posted under today's date. That may have screwed up your link above - sorry about that!

Posted by: Christine at July 18, 2005 09:52 PM

TulipGirl,

I believe it is important that you know why I even posted a comment on your site. (1) I wanted to make sure that correct information was given about my church. (2) I have some faithful visitors to Caden's Page and I wanted to make sure that they knew that I do not endorse the contents of this posting. Not everyone who visits Caden's Page understands what a trackback is and in the event they followed the link through to your site, well you see where I am headed. I could have written a big disclaimer message in Caden's Page but that would have just drawn more direct attention to an argument that I do not care to enter into on Caden’s Page. You choose to enter into the subject of GFI pros and cons on your web site. I do not choose to on Caden’s Page.

It is rather entertaining that you thought I “took offense at the inversion of Alumni and Leadership in this post”. Are you serious? It was the use of Gary Ezzo’s name in place of GFI that bothered me. I have made it very clear in the past that I do not understand the Ezzo bashing and name calling that I have seen from some sites that you link to including your husband’s blog(www.postmodernclog.com). Why spin the conference as an Ezzo thing and plaster it on Caden’s Page where I have made no effort at all to start an argument about the Ezzos or GFI? Your question, “I wonder how they reconcile the fact that Gary Ezzo still has unresolved church discipline issues still lingering, from the last two churches he attended? “ Why do you care so much? I will assure you that my pastor will show me the door long before the Ezzos if he starts judging his members based on lingering issues. God will deal with any lingering issues that any of us might have when judgment day comes.

My comment about the bias was made in response the first comment, “I applaud you for recognizing those who are "pro Ezzo" as well.”

The first sentence and title of your posting disturbed me particularly as I have stated previously. The misrepresentation of the conference appears on the trackback and I started to edit your trackback as a result. I am not a big fan of editing comments as I know you are not either. I was not happy to see you tap into my posting with a trackback hinging on a few words about my attendance at the GFI conference when the primary subject matter of my posting had absolutely nothing to do with GFI. It just happened to be my destination for the weekend. I could have been going to a marriage retreat and you would have seen the same response from me relative to Caden’s caregivers.

I reserve the right to edit any future trackbacks and/or comments that might lead to material that is primarily negative and/or off subject from the primary message of my posting.

Posted by: Hank Osborne at July 19, 2005 12:29 AM

Hank,

I totally understand not wanting to endorse something to readers of your blog via a trackback. My MT program does automatic trackbacks--feel free to delete the trackback that pinged your blog. I wasn't "fishing" for your readers, and I understand your website is primarily aimed at family and friends and that this is only tangentially related.

Grace and peace,

Posted by: TulipGirl at July 19, 2005 12:34 AM

"It is rather entertaining that you thought I “took offense at the inversion of Alumni and Leadership in this post”. Are you serious? It was the use of Gary Ezzo’s name in place of GFI that bothered me.

Ahhhh. . . That clarifies it. I thought it was a little odd--but, since you're a techie type, I thought it was perhaps your attention to detail that made that word switch stand out. *grin*

It sounds like you are bothered that I use GFI and Gary Ezzo almost interchangably, right?

Perhaps if you read about the history of the Gary Ezzo controversy you'd understand more of where that comes from. . .

You raise some interesting and important points about Gary Ezzo, church discipline, and why it matters. . . But I'll have to get back to those later.

Grace and peace,

Posted by: TulipGirl at July 19, 2005 12:52 AM

Hank,

The criticism of GFI or Gary Ezzo is no different than how a Democrat or Republican criticizes the other. I can see from your website that you enjoy debating politics. Imagine speaking with someone who absolutely did NOT like the candidate that you supported. It's not a reflection of YOU, nor is it a reflection of the way you have chosen to live your life. It's merely their opinion on the candidate. I'm sorry that you feel attacked both here and at Awareparent but, honestly, it's not about you.

I think what Tulipgirl says is SO true. Parents that are big followers of the GFI materials are AWESOME parents who DEARLY love their children. Otherwise, they wouldn't go through such great links to take the classes. But, a criticism of Gary Ezzo and GFI is honestly no different than the way he opens up his books by criticizing those that choose NOT to follow his materials. Our household is the antithesis of those courses and I assure you that what he describes is NOT what you will find in our house.

I hope you'll come back to Awareparent and defend your position. That's what a debate is all about. But please don't think that anyone is attacking you here OR at Awareparent. We're not.

Posted by: ByGodsGrace at July 19, 2005 08:15 AM

tulip girl,

thanks for the ever-informative research you post here. :)

Posted by: greenemama at July 19, 2005 01:59 PM

You know, if you think Ezzo's bad, you should check out that "To Train Up A Child" book by Michael Pearl. He actually believes you should hose your kid down outside to pottytrain him.

The crazy stuff I read before I had a baby....

Posted by: Ellen at July 19, 2005 04:52 PM

ByGodsGrace,


No matter how you spin it, there is no justification for the name calling and bashing of a man simply because he authors material that is not accepted by everyone.

You can try to compare my views on politics with my questions about why people bash Gary Ezzo, but the comparison does not hold water. I do not bash the authors of parenting materials that I disagree with. As a matter of fact, I do not recall ever even mentioning other parenting methods. I disagree with the Democrats in general and the liberal philosophies that many Democrats base their platforms on. I do point out some of those who I think are stepping out on the extreme side of issues once in a while but I do not go as far to call them names, dedicating whole websites exploiting their name, or even vow to busting them in my sidebar. People who enter into politics should expect to be criticized to some degree since they are going to represent those who vote them into office and sometimes represent as many if not more people who did not vote for them. I do not think that debates over parenting material is equal in comparison to debates on politics since the reader can simply put the book away and move on and never have to take another action be keep from being affected by the author.

I am writing a book. The intent of the book is to help parents get through certain situations related to critically ill and/or special needs children. I am not running for public office. I will not be placed in a position to make decisions on laws or ordinances that affect other people's lives and freedoms. I will simply be offering information based on my experiences and observations of other people's experiences. Not a single person will be forced to accept my opinions based on their address. That is why the comparison between politics and parenting style choices is very different. You can put my book on the shelf or even in the trash that is even if you choose to even read it. You will not have the same luxury if I run for public office and get elected into a position that might allow for me to get laws passed that are enforced over your regardless of your opinion of me or the laws. I do actually hold an appointed position in my local government and probably understand politics just a little bit better than many of my readers may think.

I go back to my original question. Why so much emphasis on the author rather than the material? This posting by TulipGirl is perfect illustration of my point. The name Ezzo is mentioned 17 times. The material and/or books are referred to a total of 5 times in this posting which includes GFI 2 times, Babywise 2 times, and GKGW 1 time. This is a reoccurring theme with those who oppose GFI materials. Please help me understand the emphasis on the author rather than the materials and why the bashing and name calling is so important?

Posted by: Hank Osborne at July 20, 2005 03:16 AM

Hank,

I hold Christian leaders to a much higher principle than the rest. I expect them to use scripture accurately - and, I reserve the right to stand up and criticize the author of that material when he inaccurately represents scripture. Example - breastfeeding a baby on a schedule doesn't make sense. It's not what God intended because if he HAD, he would have placed a watch on every mothers arm so that she would indeed KNOW what the time was. There is too much evidence that he intended for women to nurture babies at their breast when they are HUNGRY - NOT every 2 1/2 - 3 hours. It doesn't make sense and there is too much evidence to the contrary.

The author also attempts to say that we need schedules because "God is the God of order" - that is scripture AGAIN taken out of context. That was taken out of a passage where Jesus walked into the Temple and the worship service was CHAOS. Jesus said that God wanted order in WORSHIP. That does NOT translate into "put your baby on a schedule as quick as you can (start at age 2 weeks)".

I was a breastfeeding Mother who took the class at church because everyone recommended it - because it was "SO GREAT". FORTUNATELY, my lactation consultant convinced me NOT to follow it and I was able to breastfeed for a long time. Interestingly enough, out of the 6-8 friends around me who ALSO followed the program, none of them could breastfeed past 4 months. AND, to BOOT, (this is hindsite) the INSTRUCTOR of my CLASS never breastfed either of her 2 children past 2 months. ALL OF THEM SAID THEY DID NOT PRODUCE ENOUGH MILK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The FACT is, Hank, that the number of women that are not able to produce enough milk to feed their children is less than 1%. FORMULA was made by MAN and it's a BRAND NEW INVENTION. Women have been breastfeeding their children for thousands of years and they didn't do it with a watch.

ANd what about his stance on co-sleeping that it will "ruin your marriage" and it's "child centered"????? THe FUNNIEST thing about THAT is that for thousands of years, parents have been sleeping with their children. Cribs, Hank are a NEW INVENTION!!!! Did they teach you THAT in the class????? Choosing to sleep with your children or not is a personal choice that only you can make. But don't tell me that it will ruin my marriage or make me "child centered". PLEASE! My Grandfather grew up on a farm during the depression in a 2 room house and the entire family slept together on a mat on the floor. Let me tell you - they turned out to be a FINE bunch of people. And his parents were married to each other until the day they died.

OH! And there is always my favorite that we must allow our children to cry because, after all, God let Christ cry out on the cross and didn't answer his cries. Sorry - that is just plain sick and twisted.

These are just a few examples. I could go on and on but I don't think Tulipgirls blog is the right place.

So, why do I run Awareparent.net? Because I felt so duped by the class. They didn't present the material to us as "this is just one way and it works for some". It was presented (and the book is written this way) as "If you don't follow this program, you are a Christian only to a point and you will have screaming hellions for children". And now that I have chosen to follow my own heart and God given instincts, I have been rejected and very judged by the instructor of my class - simply because I have personally chosen not to follow the program. There are so many parent "into" the program at that church that we have since left. I want to help alert other parents to the "good and bad" of following that program. Are there good things in the program? Yes - but you can FIND those good things in other places as well.

I sincerely wish that I would have searched for more informaiton on the Internet BEFORE I decided to follow that program or take that class. I want others to have a place where they can come and ask questions. And, if they still choose to take the class and follow the program, they will go into with their eyes wide open.

I think that they most telling article, for ME, was this one:
http://www.equip.org/free/DG233.htm

I saw a LOT of what was described in here at my former church and it's some scarey stuff...

None of this is directed at you as a parent, or as an instructor of the class. Only you and your wife have to answer to God for how you raise your children. And, I also believe that there are many ways to raise children because they are ALL very different and each situation is different. But, I will continue to let others know what I have found with the program and continue to let them know it's not the "ONLY" way. I believe in God's grace and his mercy and I believe that THAT is how we should raise our children. Many times I have asked myself how WOULD Jesus react if here were here right now with me. How would he tell me to teach this child right from wrong. And, when I pray and ask for his guidance, I don't hear "Play pen time, couch time, etc", I hear, "Love the children. Cuddle and nurture them".

If I'm wrong, come on over to Awareparent - let's pull out the class books and the Bible and do a Bible study on some of the scripture in the books together as a group. Our only requirement there is that if you say something is biblical, then you must support it with scripture. And, if you can biblically show me that breastfeeding on a schedule is how God intended and if you can show me in the Bible that God really DOES intend for us to teach babies to sleep train and sleep through the night before 8 weeks of age, I will SHUT DOWN the Awareparent board - GLADLY.

May God continue to bless you as He has and be with your family as you deal with Caden's illness.

I am a Mother
By God's Grace

Posted by: ByGodsgrace at July 20, 2005 09:19 AM

No matter how you spin it, there is no justification for the name calling and bashing of a man simply because he authors material that is not accepted by everyone.

Hank,

Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see a lot of personal bashing or name-calling of Ezzo. Perhaps you could provide some examples?

Most of the articles I see referenced are either talking about Ezzo's teaching's directly or how people have dealt with those teachings in their lives. Besides the ones mentioning his [ex-]relationship with Grace Community there's really not a lot of talk about Ezzo personally. What you seem to be missing is that the word "Ezzo" is often a reference to his teachings. The two are inextricably linked in many people's minds.

But forget about the supposed bashing and name-calling. What if I don't "accept" Ezzo's teachings for more than just personal reasons. Here's a sample list of why I could never recommend Ezzo :

  • Bad medical advice with no supporting evidence
  • Lack of knowledge on normal childhood development
  • Confusion as to the nature of sin and the work of Christ
  • Scripture consistently pulled out of context to support his ideas
  • Makes moral issues where there should be none.
  • Maligns and misrepresents other methods which contradict his own
  • Lack of character which should be representative of a Christian teacher

Now tell me, if I honestly believe even half of these, what should my response be? What would you do if a teacher was invited into your church to do a seminar and taught stuff you were sure was in direct opposition to scripture. Would you sit idly by while your neighbors in the pew smiled and nodded? If so, then I believe you'd be ignoring your scriptural responsibility. In the same way, I cannot ignore what Ezzo teaches or the standard he is called to as a leader.

I hope that you take time to look at the articles on Ezzo.Info and examine for yourself the legitimate concerns that people have about Ezzo and his teaching.

Posted by: brian at July 20, 2005 03:56 PM

Hank,

I had the most brilliant post of my life written, and then the computer dropped, so we are left without those pearls of wisdom. Or something. *big grin* Isn't that the way it always is?

Anyway. . . I just want you to know I'm not ignoring you, but this is the crazy part of my week.

Posted by: TulipGirl at July 20, 2005 07:18 PM

Hi Hank,

I'm the one whose personal xanga site lists "Ezzo-busting" on the sidebar. Xanga's template asks the website holder to fill in "interests" and "expertise". I put in TWO tongue-in-cheek entries for my expertises, one, being right, and two, Ezzo-busting.

If you have a complaint about my Ezzo-busting, I must refer you to my other expertise, being right. :-) (JOKE!)

Seriously, it is tongue in cheek. It is not directed at Ezzo personally. But the fact is I've studied the controversy surrounding the Ezzos since my youngest was a baby, and he is now 15 years old.

When I was teaching the 6th graders in Sunday school, we discussed our Christian responsibility to speak out when something is not right. I can sleep at night knowing I have followed the Lord in this matter. Ezzo has improved his material in exactly the areas the critics have spoken out about, and I'm grateful for that. It is unfortunate he has not been approachable in a more normal manner.

Posted by: Kathy at July 22, 2005 01:37 PM

Hank,

You raised such an important issue, that I'm addressing it in a series of blog posts. The first can be read here:

Evaluating Ezzo's Leadership: Why Bother?


And a clarification. . . You ask, "The name Ezzo is mentioned 17 times. The material and/or books are referred to a total of 5 times in this posting which includes GFI 2 times, Babywise 2 times, and GKGW 1 time. This is a reoccurring theme with those who oppose GFI materials.

It's simply shorthand to refer to Gary Ezzo the teacher and Gary Ezzo's parenting materials in one swoop with the term "Ezzo."

Considering that Gary Ezzo is fond of multiple names for the same set of teachings, I'm sure you can understand how can help avoid confusion.

Ezzo's infant materials were known as Preparation for Parenting. The version marketed to those outside the church is Babywise, which there have been several versions of, btw. The new church version is "Let the Children Come Along the Infant Way." I believe the ideas were first published in booklet form under an even different name.

It gets even more confusing when you add in Prep for the Toddler Years/Along the Todder Way/Babywise II/Toddlerwise.

And then consider Growing Kids God's Way/Childwise/Along the Virtuous Way.

I'm sure you can see how it is much easier to refer to the collection of teachings by the one common factor: Ezzo.

Using "Ezzo" on my blog is not an attack on the person of Gary Ezzo--it is a shorthand way to refer to both the teachings and the teacher in a quick and understandable way.

And as you pointed out I referred to Ezzo rather than GFI at times. Considering Ezzo is the driving force behind GFI and his name is more recognized than GFI is, well, it adds to reader comprehension.


Btw, you will note that some people online still use the GKGW abbreviation or interchange BW with GKGW with GFI. Sometimes people get mixed up with what book teaches what.

However, you will find all of the facts at ezzo.info carefully documented, refering to the publication being specifically addressed, and most often even including the version/publishing date.

I'm not responsible for any of the information at Ezzo.Info, btw--with the exception that our story is included on the Voices of Experience page. However, I've been aware of the people who host that site--even from my pro-Ezzo days. I've seen them be scrupulous about documentation and double checking facts before making them available online.

Posted by: TulipGirl at July 23, 2005 08:08 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)


 
In My Garden
Archives
Recently Written
Book Blogging
Friends and Fans
Good Stuff
Blog Goodies
UkrBloggers
Archives