« Cool Music | Main | Ah, Dreaming. . . »


March 06, 2006

In the "What Took Them So Long" Category

Ezzo devotees have finally launched their response to the well-documented, factually accurate Ezzo.Info site.

Let's welcome to the world wide web, EzzoTruth.Com!


One of the interesting tidbits at EzzoTruth.Com, is the veiled encouragment by his supporters for Gary Ezzo to sue those who are vocally critical online of his teachings:


Although no determination has been made on whether an American libel suit will be filed, it is EzzoTruth's hope that this legal victory will cause US Internet critics of the GFI ministry to more carefully evaluate the information they present as fact.


Through the many years Ezzo.Info has been online, I've seen those involved in adminstrating the site invite Ezzo supporters to bring to light any inaccuracies on that site.


And while Ezzo supporters may disagree with how the information is presented and the conclusions drawn, the factual content of Ezzo.Info is well-documented, accurate and dare I say it? Truth.


Tags: , , , , ,

Spacer

Posted by TulipGirl  |  11:34 PM|  TrackBack (0)  |   Words

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.tulipgirl.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/999

Spacer
Comments

So the sad part is, this website was apparently put together by the sister of the woman who teaches the ezzo classes for my church.

Posted by: Sarah at March 7, 2006 01:27 AM

There was this comment at the site: the voices of a few critics. A few critics? I think there were more than a few.

I will continue to believe the correspondence that came from the leaders and elders of Grace Community Church. I will continue to believe the improvement in our family life after abandoning the Ezzos methods.

Posted by: Kim in ON at March 7, 2006 07:38 AM

I was laughing so hard this morning when I read your comment, because I ran across that site yesterday and spent about an hour rolling my eyes and thinking, "OH, PLEASE!" Especially on the page comparing themselves to attachment parenting.

I'm sure I'll be posting on it soon.

Posted by: Christine at March 7, 2006 08:32 AM

You know, a hearing in court would allow the truth to be exposed more widely, I suspect that is part of the reason why it hasn't happened yet.

Posted by: Sheena at March 7, 2006 02:12 PM

>
amen, sadly.
:o) k xx

Posted by: kate5kiwis at March 7, 2006 03:24 PM

I would think a Christian organization wouldn't sue another Christian organization since it clearly would be unbiblical (1 Cor. 6:1-8). Though,in light of this passage, I wonder how Ezzo would address any supposed slander when both groups are not really part of a church structure.

Posted by: michele at March 7, 2006 09:05 PM

Sigh. I've spent WAY more time than I should reading that "Ezzo Truth" cite. My head is spinning. Some of the stuff on there I know is false. Steve Rein didn't hack onto the GFI website. They still are using the "ECBOT" definition for demand feeding. They make leading statements that don't *really* say something, but lead the reader to jump to what they perhaps know is a false conclusion (like implying that Eric Abel reported GFI to the IRS).

I hate the whole tit for tat thing that goes on around this issue. But at the same time, I feel a need to hear a defense from some of the people for what is alledged on the site. Mostly people that I have come to respect and love over the years--despite never having met them in person. Specifically some folks on the PAM list.

Posted by: Jenn Riedy at March 8, 2006 03:14 AM

Ack! I think I deleted a comment made by Heather of
http://www.americanadiangirl.blogspot.com/ !

Because of the slime of spam, I have to manually approve each comment. I approve all comments for publication here, but reserve the right to edit out foul language or indicate instances of spam or cross-posting.

I also have to manually delete the deluge of spam. I remember clicking on a comment by Heather to approve it, but I don't see it here now.

Heather's comment was related to the Ezzo's, and one of the key points in it was, "What's so wrong with a routine for babies?" only stated with personal examples and other comments.

Since I am vocally critical of Gary Ezzo and his teachings, I wanted to be sure Heather (and other readers) know that I did not intentionally delete the comment, and I welcome comments and interaction from people regardless of which ideas they agree/disagree with me!


So, Heather--feel free to post your comment again! And I'm very sorry for losing your comment!

Posted by: TulipGirl at March 8, 2006 07:25 AM

Hey, I think there's a conspiracy against me!!
Since I have switched to word verification before any comment can be posted, I have had zero problems with spam.

I'll try to resubmit it later.

Posted by: Heather at March 8, 2006 11:17 AM

I knew I shouldn't have gone to that site. Seems to me the Ezzos are making some last ditch attempts to keep their name and organization from further descend into un-popularity.

Posted by: Amie at March 8, 2006 05:54 PM

Basically my question boils down to this: what is inherently wrong with developing a routine/schedule for your baby? If you work hard to meet all their needs as you love them and care for them, then why will they mistrust you if they are left to cry it out on occasion?
I also wanted to add that Ezzo didn't invent the concept of a schedule, as I'm sure you know. I noted that my mother-in-law, 29 years ago started her firstborn on a schedule after being given a Canada Health booklet(a government publication) on babies. She then used that same process for all her boys, including the twins. She was encouraging me to do the same long before I offered her a read-thru of Babywise.
I have more questions about AP, but I don't want to hijack the post.
I then complimented Tulipgirl for her graciousness to me in our conversations and asked for the opportunity to email her on occasion.
That was it, nothing grand.

Posted by: Heather at March 8, 2006 07:39 PM

Man, I am way out of the loop! Ezzo? Sounds like an oil company.

Posted by: Daniel at March 9, 2006 02:41 PM

What REALLY struck me is that they did not attack Dr. and Mrs. Sears. Well, other than a swipe at Mrs. Sears for being a La Leche League leader. Not that they could attack much, since they mostly attack (carefully selected, and selective) credentials and the Sears' have credentials in spades. Not to mention 8 kids who seem to be living their lives to fullest potential in a loving and supportive family.

The other thing is that they take swipes at La Leche and their philosophy, but so grossly misrepresent the philosophy as to be arguing against the apple while holding up the orange. Why don't they link to the 10 tenents of La Leche, and let people decide for themselves?

-Amy

Posted by: Amy at March 9, 2006 09:59 PM

Ezzo's work is such a waste of good paper and ink. I was instrumental in removing GKGW from our former church. The pastoral staff had no idea of the controversary surrounding Ezzo and staff. There is a reason Ezzo lost his first church and publishing company. Darn good reasons.

Ezzo's work is like a bad penny --- popping up over and over and over.
I'm not one for censorship or banning, but I would be OH SO happy to see this book lost in the 'out of print' universe, never to be reconciled again.

Posted by: Kim at March 9, 2006 11:15 PM

I had to laugh when I saw this post and ezzotruth -- I guess it took supporters awhile to respond because it takes time to figure out how to defend nonsense. It gives me hope for the world whenever I hear folks poo-poo the dangerous and ridiculous world of babywise.

Posted by: Holly at March 10, 2006 04:50 PM

"what is inherently wrong with developing a routine/schedule for your baby?"

Nothing is inherently wrong with developing routine for our babies and children. *grin* I am a big advocate of routine and rhythm in life.

I do have a problem with the artificially-imposed eating and sleeping schedule taught by Gary Ezzo. It leads parents to overlook the cues and communication from infants for when they really are hungry and really are sleepy. It ignores developing routine throughout the day and throughout life, instead focusing almost exclusively on eating/sleeping times and the eat/wake/sleep pattern.

When I ditched BW/Prep, I found that my infant fit into the normal rhythm and routine of the older children's lives very easily, and I was better able to assess my infants hunger/sleep cues.

"If you work hard to meet all their needs as you love them and care for them, then why will they mistrust you if they are left to cry it out on occasion?"

Gary and Anne Marie Ezzo state that they do not teach "cry it out." However, the great majority of class facilitators, contact moms, and readers of BW do come away with the idea that CIO or crying to sleep train is normal and acceptable.

The more I learn about how God designed infant brain development, cortisol, hormones, and growth, the less I find uncomforted crying to be a healthy part of an infant's development.


And Heather, while Gary Ezzo's writing frames parenting discussions as Ezzo vs. AP, I bet you'd agree with me that there is a wide range of approaches to parenting. It is false to present Ezzo or AP as two ends of an extreme--much less two ends of a spectrum upon which all parents find themselves. For me, it is only in recent years that I have embraced the label AP and found it to summarize sound information about child growth and development, reflecting what we see about family relationships in the Bible.

Many parents reject Ezzo parenting (or discard Ezzo parenting) without ever embracing Attachment Parenting. As we seek to raise our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, by His grace and to His glory, there is much freedom that He gives us. At the heart of Christian parenting, I believe, is a reliance upon the Lord--day by day, child by child. *hug*

Posted by: TulipGirl at March 12, 2006 12:33 PM

Ugh, "ezzotruth" is such an oxymoron in my book. Sigh.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: where are the anti-AP groups that claim their children were starved nearly to death because of AP? Or suffer attachment problems?

Where are the Anti-Sears sites talking about the problems AP had caused their family and children?? How it's robbed their joy? Or the sites that expose all of Sear's dirty little secrets?

Hmmm, as far as I know there aren't any!! I'm not saying AP parents are perfect, please don't get me wrong, but when you are following your childs cues and meeting their needs, and you have an understanding of what is appropriate infant/child behavior, I think you have a better chance at helping grow happy, healthy, well-attached kids!

Posted by: Jenn at March 16, 2006 03:48 PM

An applicable cautionary analysis for GE and his misguided EzzoDeceit sponsors: excerpted from “Victim chic? The rhetoric of victimhood” by Michael Ovey; Cambridge Papers, vol. 15, no. 1; March 2006


“The victim pattern therefore represents a very significant temptation for human beings. Humans very frequently are genuine victims who do not deserve particular actions aimed at them. However, victim status can be treated as an exhaustive, totalizing account of who someone is. Defining oneself as a victim can involve seeing oneself as innocent and right, not just in relation to a particular relationship or action, but more globally. Seeing oneself globally as a victim lies very close to self-righteousness.

This link with self-righteousness is deeply troubling because the Gospels criticize self-righteousness so heavily. Spiritually, we frequently experience strong temptations to self-acquittal and self-righteousness. The problems with self-righteousness perhaps deserve development.

First, self-righteousness tends to stop us realizing we need mercy. The parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector (Luke 18:9-14) illustrates this danger (although neither character portrays himself as victim). The parable is told to those who trust in their own righteousness while despising others (verse 9). Self-adjudicating oneself as victim and others simply as victimizers can risk this. Self-righteousness accounts for the two different prayers. The tax collector’s lack of self-righteousness, his refusal to categorize himself as innocent, means he prays for mercy (verse 13) unlike the Pharisee. Yet the Pharisee actually does need God’s mercy, for all fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). The Pharisee, like the rest of us, may not deserve a specific hostile human action directed against him, yet he is still not innocent in an absolute sense. Designating myself as victim may hide this from me.

Hence a blanket verdict on myself that I am “victim” and fundamentally innocent, starts to resemble a denial of the helpless bondage of humans to sin. Such a denial implicitly denies Christ’s atoning sacrifice for sin was a necessity.

Secondly, human self-righteousness is associated with hostility to Jesus. Jesus is certainly opposed because of who he says he is, but also because of who he says we are. The persistent opposition described by the Synoptics to Jesus from the self-righteous, the hypocrites, indicates this. In John, Jesus is explicit, pointing out that the “world” (John’s term for humanity in its opposition to God) hates him because he testifies that its deeds are evil (7:7). Jesus does not allow the world to depict itself simply as innocent victim, and the world hates him for it.

Thirdly, our self-righteousness is associated with our self-construction. Conferring self-righteousness on myself is a sovereign judicial act. I define myself. This readily looks like establishing my own identity and nature independently of God. But, of course, to be a victim, I need another to be seen as victimizer. My act of self-acquittal has its corollary in my act of sovereign condemnation of the other as victimizer. Both acts resemble infringements on God’s role as creator. For when I define myself so fundamentally, I risk ignoring that I am God’s creature and that, as my creator, he directs my purposes and weighs them. Moreover, when I weigh one of his creatures as if judgment belonged to me, I risk usurping God’s place as creator-judge of his creation. Similarly, Proverbs counsels restraint on seeking vengeance: it to readily replaces God. Moreover, to maintain my victim role I may acquire an unhealthy interest in maintaining others as victimizers, while the Bible teaches I should seek their salvation and sanctification. My vested interest may be in their guilt, not their justification.

Fourthly, self-righteousness can mask the true nature of my actions, lessening suspicion of my motives or any inclination to think I may deceive myself, which Romans 1:18ff indicates cannot be ignored after the Fall. Importantly, my lack of self-criticism, born of self-righteousness, may mask from me that my actions allegedly undertaken in legitimately repelling oppression, are themselves, oppressive.”

Posted by: Solomon at April 5, 2006 03:14 PM

Wow great post... I had no idea they had a new website... thanks for sharing

Posted by: Janet at April 6, 2006 07:04 PM


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