To Train Up a Child - The Weird, the Harsh and the Downright Shocking

Oh goodness, where to begin?  I guess before I launch into all the craziness of Michael and Debi Pearl's To Train Up A Child, I need to share something I was reminded of this afternoon while cleaning my kitchen.  I was listening to a sermon from Grace Fellowship Church in Kentucky (where my brother-in-law is the worship pastor) about how just having a godly home does not guarantee godly children.  One of the points he made is that none of us should be trusting a particular parenting method or philosophy to turn out godly children - we should ultimately be turning to God and giving him the glory when our children follow Him.  We all want to belong to a certain parenting "club" - Babywise, attachment parenting, pro-spanking, anti-spanking - and it's easy to throw out generalizations and criticisms of every other method.  I've heard all the following: Parents who use Babywise (like I did) are cold, unfeeling and selfish people who by letting their children cry or creating routine are destroying the very nerves in their brains.  Parents who follow the attachment parenting method are over-emotional clingy people who create brats.  People who spank (like I do) will generate violent, dumb children.  People who don't spank have wild, uncontrollable, unpleasant kids.  I think we need to be careful to evaluate parenting methods in a balanced and fair way, to realize that no one is going to follow the "manual" of a method to perfection, that we all pick and choose, that every parenting book written by humans is flawed in some ways, and that ultimately, we follow God, not a method.   That's why I wrote about the positives aspects of this book yesterday.  On to my personal opinion of what the negatives are, the things I will not be implementing. 

1) The Pearls advocate training your children as opposed to simply disciplining them when the situation gets out of control.  I think that's a great idea.  However, the Pearls seem to rely on creating artificial situations and then "switching" the kids when they don't do the "correct" thing. For example, they recommend deliberately placing a forbidden object within reach of the child, then when the child reaches for it, he/she should be told, "No!" and switched.  In order to teach about not touching a hot stove, they describe how they heated up the stove, enticed the child to touch it, then yelled "Hot!" as they were touching the stove.  I don't see the point of this.  Are there not enough naturally occuring situations to teach your children how to obey without creating artificial situations?  Why tell your child to do something he's not actually allowed to do and then punish him?  And if you're going to use physical pain as your training mechanism, how is the child to differentiate between "training pain" and the pain of discipline (spanking)?  To a small child (or baby), it would seem to be one and the same. 

2) While I do spank my childen for disobedience related issues, I disagree with the Pearls philosophy behind it as well as some of the details related to putting it into practice.  They believe that parents who do not spank are being disobedient to the word of God.  They never describe any other consequences for actions such as timeout, taking away a privilege or toy, natural consequences etc.  They view spanking as a way to break the child's will (I see it as simply the consequence for disobedience.) They say, "If you have to sit on him to spank him, then do not hesitate.  And hold him there until he has surrendered.  Prove that you are bigger, tougher...slowly begin to spank.  If you go too fast, you may not allow time enough for the inner transformation to occur...I have found that five to ten licks are usually sufficient."  Overkill, to say the least.  They also describe using a 10-12 inch branch that is "sufficient" for the "under one year old child."  Personally, I think a child under one year old is too young to be spanked. 

3) The Pearls describe many situations in which they disciplined other people's children while under their care.  I assume they had permission to do this, but the text never actually states this.   Their premise is that "to allow your child a time of rebellion and self-will (whether it is around your spouse, grandparents, older brothers or sisters, the babysitter, or his peers) is to allow rebellion and self-will to stay alive."  I strongly disagree that anyone other than the parents should be allowed to physically discipline my children.  I have never had a problem with my kids behaving outrageously while with a babysitter or their grandparents.  If there was a problem, it was sufficient for the person in charge to explain that what they were doing was wrong and maybe give them a time out.  If I discover that my children are misbehaving for someone else, there will be discussions about proper behavior and probably some sort of consequence.  This hasn't come up a whole lot...I just have pretty good kids. 

4) The Pearls' suggestion for what to do if a wife feels her husband's discipline is too harsh is to "demand, expect, train for, and discipline the children to give you instant and complete obedience".  Nowhere does it mention that maybe you should be respectfully addressing the issue with your husband when the children are not present. 

5) "One mother...put her daughter [12 months old] down and told her to go to sleep.  The sleepy child responded by crying in protest.  Following the book's instructions, she spanked the child and told her to stop crying and go to sleep."  The Pearls claim this is not discipline but "reinforcing your words."  Again, the point of the spanking?  Why couldn't you just walk out and close the door?  If the baby is that tired, she'll go to sleep. 

6) The so-called safety training scenarios are bizarre.  In order to teach their children gun safety, Michael Pearl put an empty gun in plain view of the children and told them not to touch it, switching them when they did.  I've already described the hot stove scenario.  In order to teach their children to stay away from their pond, the father would take the children for a walk near the edge and either wait for them to fall in or actually PUSH THEM IN!  He waitied "long enough for her to right herself in the cold water and show some recognition of her inability to breathe."  WHAT?!?!  Just tell the kid to stay away.  Put a fence up.  Ridiculous.

7) There is a chapter entitled "Potty Untraining" describing how the Pearls trained their babies (3 months old and older) to not use diapers.  I don't even know what they were thinking when they included this chapter.  To show us how extreme they are?   Did no one edit this book and maybe say, "You know what, I'm not sure this is relevant or cohesive"?

8) The Pearls describe how their 9 and 11 year old daughters recommended to a neighbor that she switch her 7 month old son who was throwing a fit.  "If he is old enough to pitch a fit, he is old enough to be switched."  Oh brother...

9) And then there's the chapter titled, "Homeschool Makes No Fools".  Oh, people, I beg to differ.  As a product of homeschooling and a future homeschooler, let me tell you, there are some very strange and foolish people who homeschool.  Homeschooling doesn't guarantee geniuses or godly children.  Just for fun, here's what the Pearls think about education:
- "Never even consider sending your children to private Christian schools, much less the public, automaton factories."
- "If you want a child who will easily integrate into the New World Order, waiting his turn in line for condoms, a government-funded abortion, sexually transmitted disease treatment, psychological evaluation, and a mark on the forehead, then follow the popular guidelines in today's education, entertainment, and discipline.  But if you want a son or daughter of God, you will have to do it God's way and in God's choice of location - the home.
- "By the time [boys] are twelve or thirteen, they should be finished with structured school and be involved in an occupation with you."

These are the kinds of homeschoolers who make all homeschoolers look strange. 

10) And then there's just the random advice...
- "If you get a child who is particularly finicky and only eats a limited diet, then feed him mainly what he doesn't like until he likes it."  Doesn't that make me a short order cook, cooking a normal menu for the rest of my family and the hated food for the picky kid?  How about he eats what I make or nothing else?

- "The fantasy arising from Barbie dolls causes a child to role-play a porno queen." 

- "Never yield to fads.  Christians should have too much dignity to be carried along by the Madison Avenue promoters."  This sounds like they are advocating rebellion against anything popular simply for the sake of being different.  I wonder if they pay taxes...

- "Hollywood is not for God's children.  Don't allow the brainless, subversive, Sesame Street type propaganda to tome into your house.  Your children's thinking should be molded by the Word of God and Christian example, not by sex perverts and socialists.  If you want to destroy your family, then get yourself a good TV and VCR to keep the kids company." Oh, I've so heard this before.  I'll bet they don't read Shakespeare and I'll bet they think rock music (meaning anything with a beat) is from the Devil.   

Well, I think that's it.  Like I posted earlier, there is a good amount of wisdom throughout the book.  Honestly though, most of the good stuff is presented much more reasonably and attractively in other Christian parenting books, Shepherding a Child's Heart (Tedd Tripp) for one example.  I find the Pearls tone to be condescending and snide.  They write in very absolute terms, using "always" and "never" throughout as though every technique is a done deal - "If you do this, you will definitely have perfect, happy children."  Save yourself $7.95 and don't buy this book.  It's just not worth it.