Conference yukon::christian_v7

Re: .0  (Jim Martin)

>    Did anyone see the show on ABC Tonite, with Peter Jennings on 7/11
>    on the popular class 'Growing Kids Gods Way'?  I would be curious
>    as to what was said about it.  Not that I would trust their views, but
>    it would be interesting to see what was said.

I didn't see it on the TV, but after reading your basenote I told my wife about
it and she checked the Compuserve GFI forum, where there has already been a
fair amount of discussion about it.  She did come across a written transcript
of the Jennings news clip, which I can cross-post if anyone is interested,
as well as an ABC news web pointer.

As you might expect from the liberal/secular media, they did a hatchet job 
on it, although my wife and I agreed that they could have done a lot worse.

On the topic of GFI, there is a thread that I started in note 870.12 a while
back.  Some of the same issues that were brought up in the news clip are
addressed in a rebuttal by Gary Ezzo to a May 25, 1996 article in World
magazine.  I posted that rebuttal in note 870.19. 

My wife and I have been through the "Preparation for Parenting" and "Growing
Kids God's Way" programs, so I feel qualified to answer any questions or
concerns about them.

 I'd be interested in seeing the transcript.




 JIm

Peter Jennings:  On the American Agenda tonight, raising a child.  There has 
been an explosion in the number of guides to good parenting.  On the agenda 
tonight, our religion reporter, Peggy Wehmeyer, who's come across a 
controversial approach to raising children that has caught on in many 
churches across the country, and caught some criticism as well.

Leslie Mayer (GKGW Mother):  Remember your roomtime rules?  Stay in your 
room, don't talk to Mommy...

Peggy Wehmeyer:  Leslie Mayer has been raising her three children to be 
obedient...

Leslie Mayer:  Would you please go tell Emily you're sorry?...

PW:  Courteous...

LM:  Like you mean it...

PW:  And to have strong moral values.

LM:  (praying with children) Thank you for this food. Amen.

PW:  Mayer is following a popular parenting program called Growing Kids 
God's Way.  The philosophy is that if parents strictly control a child's 
choices and behavior early in life, they are more likely to develop moral 
character later.  So from the time baby comes home from the hospital, 
feeding, napping, and playtimes follow an orderly schedule. (LM puts baby 
in playpen and closes door.  Baby begins to cry.)  Seven month old Grace 
must spend time alone in her playpen to learn self-control and patience.

LM:  You're  teaching the baby from the onset that there is a plan, and 
that the parent is the one that's in control of the plan, not the child. 

Gary Ezzo (speaking to audience at church conference):  Our children are 
out of control, our society is out of control, almost every institution we 
have is out of control...

PW:  Gary Ezzo, a minister, and his wife, Anne Marie founded GKGW 10 years 
ago and today its sweeping through thousands of conservative churches.  Ezzo
estimates more than half a millilon babies have been raised on his regimen.

Anne Marie Ezzo (speaking to audience at church conference):  We have to 
again go back to scripture...

PW:  The Ezzo's use the Blble, not modern psychology, as a moral guide.

GE (to PW):  They are looking for another way, different than the last 
25 years of permissive parenting ...

PW:  The parents who study Ezzo's material in small groups, and there are 
thousands of them, say GKGW has transformed their families.

GKGW Mom in small group:  The kids are good, they're nice to be around, 
they respect you, and they treat you well, and they obey.

PW:  But critics, most of them from within the church, say that the Ezzo's 
stress obedience at the expense of a child's emotional well-being, and that 
it may even be dangerous for nursing babies.  Christy Rattliff(?) put her 
daughter, Katherine, on the Ezzo's feeding schedule when she was first born.
But, Katherine cried relentlessly, and Christy was afraid to pick her up 
and feed her more often because the Ezzo's say that erratic feeding and 
sleeping schedules can lead to Attention Deficit Disorder and metabolic 
chaos.  Katherine lost a pound within two weeks. Ezzo denies his program is 
to blame for infant weight loss, and argues that scheduled feedings actually
produce healthier babies.

Dr. William Sears:  This is probably the most dangerous program of teaching 
about babies and children that I have seen in my 25 years of being a 
pediatrician.

PW:  Dr. William Sears is a pediatrician, author of 22 books on parenting, 
and like Gary Ezzo, an evangelical Christian. 

Dr. S:  The "Parenting God's Way" course, we call it "toughlove for 
newborns."  It teaches a mother to not listen to the baby's cries. 
Eventually what happens is that mother loses trust in her instinct. 
The baby loses trust in the mother.

PW:  Ezzo uses the Bible to defend his position on letting babies cry.  For 
example, his manual (shows a copy of the Preparation For Parenting book on 
the screen) states "Praise God that the Father did not intervene when His 
Son cried out on the cross."  (To GE):  Do you feel that this is clearly 
how the Bible would direct parents to raise their children? 

GE:  I believe the biblical principles we have put in this book represent 
the mind of God, yes.

PW:  But some Christians question that.  In fact the most prominant 
evangelical parenting expert, Dr. James Dobson, will not endorse the Ezzo 
program.  He's issued a letter which says "The Ezzo's plan has much to 
offer, but may not necessarily be the last or best word in parenting."  
But despite the controversy surrounding the Ezzo program, parents like 
Leslie Mayer are convinced that they are growing kids...

(LM singing "Trust and Obey" with children)

...God's way.  This is Peggy Wehmeyer for the American Agenda.

    
    I'm intrigued by the GKGW phenomenon.  I have not read the book and
    have not discussed it with anyone who has.
    
    Interestingly, our now 98 year old pediatrician, Dr. Leila Denmark,
    largely prescribes medically what it sounds like GKGW prescribes, at
    least around feeding and crying (with my very limited knowledge of
    GKGW).
    
    Dr. Denmark absolutely taught us *not* to *feed on demand*.  The
    presupposition that every cry is a hunger cry is simply that, a
    presupposition.  It really has no basis in fact as you consider that a
    child will cry when there is no way that it could be hungry (after
    having eaten within the last hour, for example).  And Dr. Denmark has
    challenged anyone to explain and desribe the distinctions between an
    infant crying for food and an infant crying for attention and an infant
    crying for no reason and so on.  I've had four children and I could
    never tell the difference.  And as GKGW apparently instructs, improper
    feeding is *unhealthy* for a child just as it is unhealthy for an
    adult.  I suspect that Dr. Denmark would agree with much of GKGW. I
    suspect that GKGW is actually a reflection of medicine as it was
    practiced before "indulgence" and "permissiveness" became the hallmarks
    of parenting.  I personally would be wary of a non-physician's advice in 
    terms of treating disease or responding to health-related problems no
    matter how committed a Christian.
    
    Do not be confused by the "evangelical Christian" pediatrician who was
    produced to refute GKGW.  Every modern doctor practicing today (with
    the lone exception of Dr. Denmark, due to her age and era in which she
    developed her practice) is a result of the modern medical establishment
    which is overwhelmingly at odds with Christian ethics and values.  It
    would be nearly impossible, if not actually so, for a Christian in
    medicine today to practice medicine in any other way but what the
    medical establishment has determined is the proper way.  Medicine is
    now a vast faceless machine whose motive is primarily profit and whose
    ethics are completely secular and humanistic.  This was not so
    historically.
    
    jeff
    not so historically.  

      Appreciated your reply Jeff.  
    
    						Thanks!,
    
    						Tony

By the way, did you know that the Bible says that there is no God?

It says it right there in the book of Psalms.  Here is the word-for-word
quote right out of the Bible:

	"There is no God."  (Psalm 14:1)

And remember how it says in Matt 27:5 that Judas hanged himself?  Well, 
Jesus said, and I'll quote the words right out of the Bible,

	"Go and do likewise."  (Luke 10:37)

Whatever you do, please don't tell the secular media about this, or we'll
all be in big trouble. 

>      Appreciated your reply Jeff.     
>    						Thanks!,
    
>    						Tony
    
    Nice of you to say so, Tony!
    
    jeff

    I had to see this one:
    
    1Psalm 14 For the director of music. Of David.
    1The fool [1] says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt,
    their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good. 
    2The LORD looks down from heaven on the sons of men to see if there are
    any who understand, any who seek God. 
    3All have turned aside, they have together become corrupt; there is no
    one who does good, not even one. 
    4Will evildoers never learn-- those who devour my people as men eat
    bread and who do not call on the LORD? 
    5There they are, overwhelmed with dread, for God is present in the
    company of the righteous.
    6You evildoers frustrate the plans of the poor, but the LORD is their
    refuge. 
    7Oh, that salvation for Israel would come out of Zion! When the LORD
    restores the fortunes of his people, let Jacob rejoice and Israel be glad! 
    
    Luke 10
    30In reply Jesus said: "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho,
    when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, 
    beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 
    31A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the
    man, he passed by on the other side. 
    32So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on
    the other side. 
    33But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he
    saw him, he took pity on him. 
    34He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then
    he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. 
    35The next day he took out two silver coins [5] and gave them to the
    innkeeper. `Look after him,' he said, `and when I return, I will reimburse
    you for any extra expense you may have.' 
    36"Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell
    into the hands of robbers?" 
    37The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him." Jesus
    told him, "Go and do likewise." 
    
    

Now, for those of you who enjoyed my "Juicy Bible quotes" in reply .6, 
what would you make of the following claim (extracted from .3) regarding 
Ezzo's position on letting babies cry?  (Hint: answer is in 870.19) 

  PW:  Ezzo uses the Bible to defend his position on letting babies cry.  For 
  example, his manual (shows a copy of the Preparation For Parenting book on 
  the screen) states "Praise God that the Father did not intervene when His 
  Son cried out on the cross."  (To GE):  Do you feel that this is clearly 
  how the Bible would direct parents to raise their children? 

  GE:  I believe the biblical principles we have put in this book represent 
  the mind of God, yes.

Re: .9  (me)

Well, I got an e-mail from a read-only mother of three regarding my post in .9,
who was "appalled," commenting that "anyone who would leave a small baby to cry
for hours on end is either a fanatic or a real sicko". 

Obviously, at least one person missed the point I was trying to make in my
replies .6 and .9. 

Did everyone else "get it," or am I just being too non-straightforward in this
thread?

 I got it.





 Jim

    
    I didn't get it exactly, Garth.  But that's probably because I expect
    you to communicate in a certain way considering your past
    participation.  
    
    I personally do not see the link between the biblical account of
    Christ's crying out to God with a biblical principle for raising
    children.  So the premise of the entry appears irrational to me.  Maybe
    that's your point...that through editing the original message is
    polluted to the desired message of the media.
    
    jeff

    Garth,
    	I too was appalled at first when I read .6 ,but then I had to read
    the section in 870.19 to figure out what you were getting at.  Tell
    me if I am wrong, but it seems that you were trying to say that Ezzo
    was misquoted and his statements pulled out of context to make it
    look as if he was stating harsh treatment.  Just as like you pulled
    those quotes in .6 and put them out of context to make it look
    ....well quite scary... I would say.  I've never read Ezzo's book,
    so I can't say anything about it, but it sure is getting a lot of
    bad press and that make me wonder.  But then again, you can never
    trust what you read or hear in the press.  They quite frequently
    take things out of context.  What gets better ratings
    
    		1.  You should just let a baby cry it out....
    			
    				or
    	
    		2.  You shold just let a baby cry it out if he's already
    		    been fed, changed, burped and rocked for a while and
    		    nothing works.
    
    Rose

    God was forced to turn his back on Christ while on the cross because of
    the sin he was bearing for us.  I can't think of another example where
    God did this to give us a precedent for typical behavior.

    A better example to me is found in Hosea 11:1-4
    Mike

Well, some people are getting it, and some people aren't.  Jeff is right in
that it is out of character for me to be anything but straightforward in
this conference (if not completely blunt.)  I was trying to arouse people's
curiosity so as to get them to investigate the thing for themselves and
(hopefully) arrive at the same conclusion that I did. 

But let's do this the straightforward way.  Here's the excerpt from the
ABC news transcript again:

  PW:  Ezzo uses the Bible to defend his position on letting babies cry.  For 
  example, his manual (shows a copy of the Preparation For Parenting book on 
  the screen) states "Praise God that the Father did not intervene when His 
  Son cried out on the cross."  (To GE):  Do you feel that this is clearly 
  how the Bible would direct parents to raise their children? 

  GE:  I believe the biblical principles we have put in this book represent 
  the mind of God, yes.

The reporter (PW) makes an unqualified statement about Ezzo advocating letting
babies cry.  Then she holds up a copy of one of his books and quotes a 
sentence about God not intervening when His Son *cried* out on the cross.
Then the scene changes to the context of the same reporter interviewing Ezzo,
with the reporter asking him if "this" (whatever they were talking about 
before the clip began) is how he feels the Bible would direct parents to raise
their children.  Ezzo rephrases the question, but does give an affirmative
answer. 

So the picture that is painted is of Ezzo saying that the Bible teaches that
we should let babies "cry it out" because God let His Son "cry it out" on the
cross.  And if you read my reply .6 at face value, you might think that the
Bible teaches that there is no God and that we should go commit suicide like
Judas did. 

Now, it just so happens that the author of the May 25, 1996 article in _World_
magazine evidently pulled much the same stunt, because the official rebuttal
letter by Gary Ezzo to that article addresses that same point.  For those who
did not have the time or inclination to go searching through 870.19, here are
the relevant excerpts: 

From Gary Ezzo's letter of rebuttal to _World_ magazine:

    --------------------------------------------------------------------

He quotes us as saying, "Let the baby 'cry it out,' the Ezzo's advise," (page
19), yet on page 147 of Preparation For Parenting it clearly states the
opposite of what he wrote.:  If your baby is hungry, feed him.  If he routinely
shows signs of hunger before his next scheduled feeding, then find out the
reason why rather than just letting him cry it out.  He stated we use the
crucifixion to justify letting a baby cry.  Preposterous!.  The context he
pulled the quote from was not dealing with a baby's crying but is part of an
entire section dealing with wrong views of God's character.  It is dealing with
the erroneous assertion that God's character will never let a baby cry and that
he would respond immediately and mechanically to stop all crying.  The point of
our comment was that God so loved the world that He did not intervene when His
own Son cried out on the cross.  If He did, there would have been no redemption
for us today. 

[Extract from the interview between Ezzo and the author of article:]

4.	Gary E.

On page 19 you stated, "Instead of feeding babies when they are hungry (on
demand), the Ezzos advocate feeding newborns every three hours."  Roy, this
quote is suggesting that we do not believe in feeding babies when they are
hungry and that demand feeding encourages nursing only when a baby is hungry.
Neither is true. 

You went on to misquote us by writing: "Let the baby 'cry it out,' the Ezzo's
advise."

Roy, that is the exact opposite of what is written in Preparation For
Parenting.  There we say: "It should go without saying that ignoring a hungry
baby's cry is unacceptable.  Under normal circumstances, any crying that occurs
just before a feeding should be limited, since the next event is mealtime.  If
your baby is hungry, feed him.  If he routinely shows signs of hunger before
his next scheduled feeding, then find out the reason why rather than just
letting him cry it out.  Your baby's routine is to serve you, you are not to
serve your baby's routine.  (p.  147) 

Why did you write in quotes, "Let the baby 'cry it out,' the Ezzo advise" when
we clearly state the opposite? 

	Roy M.

I'll have to get back to you on that. I know I heard that phrase somewhere.

5.	Gary E.

Roy, the point here is that not only did you misquote us, but you misquoted us
exactly the opposite of what we teach.  Does it bother that you misquoted
someone to this extent? 

	Roy M.

No.

There is honest controversy over the Ezzo's method.  It's 
absolutely unfair to dismiss Dr. Sears' comments in the way
one of you did.  He's an honest, faithful Christian with 
a point of view, an author on pediatrics, and has a 
pediatric practice.  To picture him as brainwashed is
pretty bigoted.

Others have a problem with this method.   A strong church
in Pasadena, CA, not far from the Ezzos location 
discontinued offering their class at the church, and
wrote a long letter detailing why.  The letter went first
to the Ezzos, they had a dialog, then it was published.

Having heard them on the radio a few years ago in LA, 
my problem with them is that they come across as 
having revealed truth.    Look up "dogmatic" in the 
dictionary and their picture is there.  What they write is
God's Way.   Last time I looked, the Bible offers 
principles, but not the detail that they offer.   To present
their method the way they do comes extremely close to
claiming a "Bible supplement", or putting words in God's 
mouth.

I wouldn't look to ABC for intelligent commentary, but
within the Christian community, those comments exist.

    
    Hello,
    
>There is honest controversy over the Ezzo's method.  
    
    Is there?  What is "honest controversy"?
    
    >It's 
>absolutely unfair to dismiss Dr. Sears' comments in the way
>one of you did.  He's an honest, faithful Christian with 
>a point of view, an author on pediatrics, and has a 
>pediatric practice.  To picture him as brainwashed is
>pretty bigoted.

    You are referring to me but you mischaracterize my comments as
    dismissal of Sears altogether.  To the extent that Sears represents
    modern medicine, which is extremely biased toward secular, humanistic,
    and anti-Christian principles, then Sears' medical practice will
    have to reflect those same views to some degree.  And from what he was 
    quoted as saying, I believe he *is* a product of modern medicine where 
    children are concerned more than a product of biblical faith.
    
>Having heard them on the radio a few years ago in LA, 
>my problem with them is that they come across as 
>having revealed truth.    Look up "dogmatic" in the 
>dictionary and their picture is there.  What they write is
>God's Way.   Last time I looked, the Bible offers 
>principles, but not the detail that they offer.   To present
>their method the way they do comes extremely close to
>claiming a "Bible supplement", or putting words in God's 
>mouth.
    
    I haven't read their book.  And if Garth likes them I'm sure they're
    dogmatic ;)  However, there is nothing bad about dogmatics.  And if
    their biblical principles are clearly stated and their conclusions are
    logically deducible from those biblical principles then what they say 
    must be true.  However, a word of caution, if the Ezzo's are true
    fundamentalists (separatists, for example, like Gothard) I would be
    wary of them for they often will interpret the Scriptures literally,
    out of immediate and broad context.

    jeff
    

Re: .16  (Randall_do)

>There is honest controversy over the Ezzo's method.  It's 

What specifically is the controversy or perceived problem?  I assume that since
you penned the above, you must be familiar with the issues.  Please be
specific.  I hope that you will not make yourself out to be yet another
example of those who have made vague comments about the existence of
"controversy", and then backed down under critical examination, because you
were operating on hearsay and didn't really have anything of substance to
contribute.

Keep in mind that it is this which is the point of the topic, and not so much
the issues of what GFI programs and materials teach.

>absolutely unfair to dismiss Dr. Sears' comments in the way
>one of you did.  He's an honest, faithful Christian with 
>a point of view, an author on pediatrics, and has a 
>pediatric practice.  To picture him as brainwashed is
>pretty bigoted.

You present Dr. Sears as an authority on pediatrics.  He is a *physician*,
then?  A physician is one whose profession deals with a person's body.  To keep
things in perspective, the GFI programs are not focused on issues having to do
with the medical profession, but on the philosophy, principles and practice of
raising godly children.  (I should point out that there are checks and balances
in place to make sure that parenting does not become an issue with the child's
physical health, however.)

>Others have a problem with this method.   A strong church
>in Pasadena, CA, not far from the Ezzos location 
>discontinued offering their class at the church, and
>wrote a long letter detailing why.  The letter went first
>to the Ezzos, they had a dialog, then it was published.

What is the name of the church?  Who were the authors of the letter?  What was
the nature of their complaint?  Please post the letter as a reply to this
topic, so we can read it.

>Having heard them on the radio a few years ago in LA, 
>my problem with them is that they come across as 
>having revealed truth.    Look up "dogmatic" in the 
>dictionary and their picture is there.  What they write is
>God's Way.   Last time I looked, the Bible offers 
>principles, but not the detail that they offer.   To present
>their method the way they do comes extremely close to
>claiming a "Bible supplement", or putting words in God's 
>mouth.

"Jesus rose up bodily from the dead."  I am very dogmatic about
this as revealed truth, and about quite a bit of other things,
and am not ashamed to admit it.

I, too, have listened to their radio program and must say that
they are very dogmatic.  Being very familiar with their materials,
my judgment is that they are certainly dogmatic about foundational
scriptural principles in an absolute sense.  However, when it comes
to methods and practice that do not have obvious links to Holy
Scripture, they explicitly teach us to *not* be dogmatic, and to
allow flexibility in keeping with the context of the situation and
biblical ethics.  I can tell you that there is as much teaching against
legalistic parenting as there is against permissive parenting. 

>I wouldn't look to ABC for intelligent commentary, but
>within the Christian community, those comments exist.

Another vague and general statement.  Since you have made this
claim, my expectation is that you will back up this claim by
providing us with relevant excerpts from the primary source
documents.

I will be eagerly awaiting a post by you to this effect.

Re: .17  (Jeff Benson)
    
>    However, a word of caution, if the Ezzo's are true
>    fundamentalists (separatists, for example, like Gothard) I would be
>    wary of them for they often will interpret the Scriptures literally,
>    out of immediate and broad context.

I have been through Bill Gothard's basic seminar, and would not characterize
the Ezzos this way.  In fact, there are a few (minor) areas in which I feel
that they don't read scripture literally enough.

I believe that your "word of caution" is therefore uncalled for.

Since I seem to be the person most familiar with GFI materials, I have been
meaning to post a summary of their philosophy, principles, and practice.
I am very busy, but will try to get to it when I have some time to compose
a well-thought out essay.

Re: .17  (Jeff Benson)
    
>    However, a word of caution, if the Ezzo's are true
>    fundamentalists (separatists, for example, like Gothard) I would be
>    wary of them for they often will interpret the Scriptures literally,
>    out of immediate and broad context.

By the way, since you have implicated Bill Gothard as one who is a 
"separatist", and who "often will interpret the Scriptures literally,
out of immediate and broad context," could you please provide some
specific examples from Bill Gothard's teaching to back up your point?
It would be most helpful if you could provide some excerpts from the
primary source documents.

I'll also be eagerly awaiting a post to this effect.

Hi, Jeff.

|                  However, there is nothing bad about dogmatics.  And if
|   their biblical principles are clearly stated and their conclusions are
|   logically deducible from those biblical principles then what they say 
|   must be true.  However, a word of caution, if the Ezzo's are true
|   fundamentalists (separatists, for example, like Gothard) I would be
|   wary of them for they often will interpret the Scriptures literally,
|   out of immediate and broad context.

** I, too, would be very interested to see explicit examples from the source
   material that would show Bill Gothard to be among "separatists" who "will
   interpret the Scriptures literally, out of immediate and broad context."

   I've been through Gothard's Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts twice, have
   all reference material and extensive notes.  I found VERY beneficial the
   truth revealed by the Holy Spirit from God's Word through Bill Gothard.

   If you have first-hand knowledge, i.e., you've sat directly under the
   ministry of Bill Gothard and can quote the material in error, then I'd be
   open to your critique.  If you do not have personal experience, then please
   be careful in throwing out "a word of caution."

   The LEAST that can be said about Gothard's IBYC is that "their biblical
   principles are clearly stated and their conclusions are logically deducible
   from those biblical principles."

/Wayne

re.22

>I've been through Gothard's Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts twice,

Couldn't resolve your conflicts the first time, eh?

8*)

    Actually, my wife and I attended together, first time as relative newly
    weds and second time a few years later.
    
    There were some issues with which God dealt in our own lives, and other
    issues that by His grace have been precluded in our children's lives.
    
    As I'm sure you know, conflicts are a fact of life in this fallen
    world.  But God has revealed Truth in His Word and given us His Spirit
    that we be neither clueless nor comfortless.
    
    God used Bill Gothard in my life to reveal and commend truth from His
    Word.
    
    By the way, some conflicts are quite intractable--sin is pervasive! :-)
    
    /Wayne

    
    Folks,
    
    I thought it is well-known that true fundamentalists, which I
    believe Gothard to be, use a hermeneutic that is very literal, often
    resulting in separatistism.  I am familiar enough with Gothard and 
    his teachings to conclude that he does indeed use a very literal 
    hermeneutic and that his teachings, like those of most true 
    fundamentalists, lead to separatism.  
    
    Since I believe that the true fundamentalist will misinterpret the
    Bible, I believe that fundamentalists who devise child-rearing systems,
    or any other system, are in danger of introducing an erroneous system.  
    When those systems which are in error are published then many people 
    potentially will suffer from the errors.
    
    It is on this basis which I suggest a word of caution.  If you disagree
    with me on my premises, that is fine with me.  If you agree with my
    premises, and if the Ezzos are of true fundamentalist ilk, then the 
    word of caution should be aptly applied.  Either way I have no intention 
    of disecting Gothard's teachings.  
    
    jeff  

    Can explain to me what you consider "Fundamentalist" separatism and how
    it is unscriptural?

Re: .25  (Jeff Benson)

If your intention was to discuss what you call "fundamentalism" or 
"separatism" in principle, then you should have limited your discussion
to that, and done so in another topic.  As it is you have fingered two people,
Bill Gothard and Gary Ezzo, in your discussion, without providing any specifics
of why they should be lumped into your catagories, or any substantiation to
back it up. 

Now you are declining to back up your statements about these two men with
specific references to their teachings.

There is a word that discribes a small part of what you have written here.
It is called 
                           GOSSIP.

Instead of excusing yourself, you should candidly admit that you have provided
no valid reason for associating your discussion of "fundamentalism" and
"separatism" with the names "Gary Ezzo" and "Bill Gothard".

Please keep in mind that I have far less of an issue with your highly 
conditionalized "words of caution" than I do with the couple of other noters,
ABC newspeople, and various others who have provided broad editorials about
Gary Ezzo's program and teachings.  In my view, you are the least of the
offenders.  I just want to exhort you to be careful about what you write.

    
    If Gary Ezzo is a fundamentalist, his fundamentalist interpretation of
    Scripture is the basis of any system he bases upon the bible.  Some
    fundamentalists, especially those of the separatist ilk, interpret the
    bible literally where it should not be interpreted literally.  If Ezzo
    is one of these type of fundamentalists, a word of caution is advised.
    
    It is not gossip to warn folks of potential danger.  It is the reader's
    obligation to find out of Ezzo is a fundamentalist and then to consider
    his teachings in the light of that knowledge.
    
    I reject your assessment of how we must consider the veracity or 
    usefulness of Ezzo's work in this forum as unnecessarily strict and
    not conducive to discussion.
    
    jeff

    
    But then again, Garth, this is your topic and I will be glad to honor
    the limits you want to set forth for it.
    
    jeff

    Hi Nancy!

>    Can explain to me what you consider "Fundamentalist" separatism and how
>    it is unscriptural?

Fundamentalist separatism is traditionally a term which describes that
sect of Christianity (fundamentalists) who "separate" themselves from the
"world".  The term fundamentalism itself was not in use until the first quarter
of this century. Separatism is accomplished through rules which have 
traditionally included: no dancing, no drinking of alcohol, no card playing, 
no holding hands, no interracial marriage, no movie-watching, and so on. 

Why is fundamentalist separatism unscriptural?  Because it makes man the lord
of the conscience instead of the Lord.  It is contradictory to Christian
liberty.  Interestingly enough, there is a very specific NT Scripture which
addresses this very subject:  Colossians chapter 2:  Note *especially* verses
20,21.

16   Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or
     with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a
     Sabbath day.
17   These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality,
     however, is found in Christ.

20   Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why,
     as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules:
21   "Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"?
22   These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on
     human commands and teachings.
23   Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their
     self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment
     of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual
     indulgence.

    jeff

Hi, Jeff.

Although you were answering Nancy, I found your answer quite lucid and helpful
in terms of my understanding your position.  Thanks.

And I would concur that "fundamentalist separatism" by your definition is
indeed unScriptural.

The problem still remains around why you would so classify Gothard and Ezzo.
If their practice were in fact consistent with your definition of
"fundamentalist separatism," then judging their ministry unScriptural would be
right.  I particularly will remember your point on the error of making man the
lord of the conscience instead of the Lord.  That is a real danger!

I think the issue might center on differing opinion of what composes "the basic
principles of this world" versus principles deduced from Scripture and internal
witness of the Holy Spirit.

The test would seem to be "value in restraining sensual indulgence."  Rules
without basis in Truth will be shown void, whereas the fruit of the Spirit shall
endure.

Thanks again for your entry.

/Wayne

Re: .28  (Jeff Benson)

Suppose you picked up tomorrow's newspaper, and the headlines read:  "Jeff
Benson alleged to be child molester."  Suppose the article continues on, saying
things like, "If Jeff Benson is a child molester, etc. etc...."  How would you
feel about that?  And suppose that you are vindicated in the end and an inquiry
turns up no such evidence?  And suppose that the newspaper then just lets the
matter drop, without printing another headline:  "No evidence found to 
implicate Jeff Benson in child molestation"?  

Now, you have been careful to use phrases like "If Gary Ezzo is a
fundamentalist, etc. etc...."  But my point is that you ought not to
even use his name.

On the other hand, you have flat out stated that Bill Gothard is a 
"fundamentalist" and a "separatist".  So now we in the readership are
certainly justified in asking you to state your complaint, quote reliable
sources, and discuss what specifically you find wrong with his teaching.

You say,
    
>    It is not gossip to warn folks of potential danger.  It is the reader's
>    obligation to find out of Ezzo is a fundamentalist and then to consider
>    his teachings in the light of that knowledge.
    
But you seem to have no evidence of "potential danger".  Why are you raising
a red flag at all?  If you want to warn folks of the "potential danger" of
"fundamentalism," then start a new topic about "fundamentalism" and discuss the
principles.  Don't bring up the names of people you know next to nothing about. 

Re: .29

>    But then again, Garth, this is your topic and I will be glad to honor
>    the limits you want to set forth for it.
    
It isn't my topic, it's Jim Martin's.  And I'm not a moderator.  I'm an
interested contributer calling people on their loose tongues.  And I hope that
you will do the same to me if you hear me saying things I have no business
going on about in another topic.

>Re: .28  (Jeff Benson)

>Suppose you picked up tomorrow's newspaper, and the headlines read:  "Jeff
>Benson alleged to be child molester."  Suppose the article continues on, saying
>things like, "If Jeff Benson is a child molester, etc. etc...."  How would you
>feel about that?  And suppose that you are vindicated in the end and an inquiry
>turns up no such evidence?  And suppose that the newspaper then just lets the
>matter drop, without printing another headline:  "No evidence found to 
>implicate Jeff Benson in child molestation"?  
    
    Well, Garth, I don't equate the evil of child molestation as
    equal to fundamentalism or separatism, so I think your argument is a
    fallacy.  

>Now, you have been careful to use phrases like "If Gary Ezzo is a
>fundamentalist, etc. etc...."  But my point is that you ought not to
>even use his name.
    
    Pardon me, Garth, but I believe it is appropriate within this topic to 
    discuss the Ezzos, their theology, their presuppostions, their character, 
    their words, or anything else that is of interest to the readers
    concerning the Ezzos and their book.  Additionally, I think it is
    perfectly reasonable to consider that the Ezzos are very likely
    fundamentalists and that it is reasonable to read their writings with
    this in mind, particularly assessing the way they interpret Scripture
    and the conclusions they draw and the specific methods, based upon
    their conclusions, they prescribe for raising children.

>On the other hand, you have flat out stated that Bill Gothard is a 
>"fundamentalist" and a "separatist".  So now we in the readership are
>certainly justified in asking you to state your complaint, quote reliable
>sources, and discuss what specifically you find wrong with his teaching.

>You say,
    
>>    It is not gossip to warn folks of potential danger.  It is the reader's
>>    obligation to find out of Ezzo is a fundamentalist and then to consider
>>    his teachings in the light of that knowledge.
    
>But you seem to have no evidence of "potential danger".  Why are you raising
>a red flag at all?  If you want to warn folks of the "potential danger" of
>"fundamentalism," then start a new topic about "fundamentalism" and discuss the
>principles.  Don't bring up the names of people you know next to nothing about. 
    
    See the above.  The potential danger is highly probably, in my opinion. 
    By the way, I know a good deal about Gothard.  But that truly is
    another topic and I'm sorry that I mentioned his name in this topic.


>    But then again, Garth, this is your topic and I will be glad to honor
>    the limits you want to set forth for it.
    
>>It isn't my topic, it's Jim Martin's.  And I'm not a moderator.  I'm an
>>interested contributer calling people on their loose tongues.  And I hope that
>>you will do the same to me if you hear me saying things I have no business
>>going on about in another topic.
    
    That's right, it's not your topic.  I realized that later. Silly me.
    Again, I disagree with your basis for deciding what may be discussed in
    this topic and what is appropriate in that discussion as I explained
    above.  If you want to discuss this further, let's do it off-line since
    I don't intend to prolong what has become a rathole any longer.
    
    jeff

    James 1:26  If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not
    his  tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain. 
    
    James 3:5  Even so the tongue is a little member, and boasteth great
    things.  Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth!  6  And the
    tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among  our
    members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the
    course  of nature; and it is set on fire of hell. 
    
    
    
    1Corinthians 1:12  Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of
    Paul;  and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.  13  Is
    Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in  the
    name of Paul? 
    
    
    

Re: .33  (Jeff Benson)

>    Well, Garth, I don't equate the evil of child molestation as
>    equal to fundamentalism or separatism, so I think your argument is a
>    fallacy.  

I do acknowledge that I took things to extreme in my desire to make a point,
and that you have done nothing on the scale of what I painted in my scenario.
I do maintain that my analogy is valid, however.

>>Now, you have been careful to use phrases like "If Gary Ezzo is a
>>fundamentalist, etc. etc...."  But my point is that you ought not to
>>even use his name.
>    
>    Pardon me, Garth, but I believe it is appropriate within this topic to 
>    discuss the Ezzos, their theology, their presuppostions, their character, 
>    their words, or anything else that is of interest to the readers
>    concerning the Ezzos and their book.  Additionally, I think it is
>    perfectly reasonable to consider that the Ezzos are very likely
>    fundamentalists and that it is reasonable to read their writings with
>    this in mind, particularly assessing the way they interpret Scripture
>    and the conclusions they draw and the specific methods, based upon
>    their conclusions, they prescribe for raising children.

You are guessing.  I agree that it is perfectly valid to discuss the Ezzos,
their theology, their presuppositions, and etc.  But you should have asked
questions, rather than throwing out "words of caution".

>    By the way, I know a good deal about Gothard.  But that truly is
>    another topic and I'm sorry that I mentioned his name in this topic.

Well, now that you have made your accusation, do you not think that you have
an obligation to either back it up or retract it?

>    above.  If you want to discuss this further, let's do it off-line since
>    I don't intend to prolong what has become a rathole any longer.
    
You have made your comments publically, not privately.  You owe the public
an explanation.

Again, although in principle I know I am jumping all over you on this point,
I do want to say again that your lack of discretion on this matter is very
minor, in my opinion, so please keep that in perspective.  And from what you
have already written, I would guess that you, the Ezzos, and I are quite
like-minded in the area of parenting issues. 

Re: .34  (Nancy)

Yup.  That's what this topic is all about.  Thanks for posting those
scriptures.

Re: .16  (Randall_do), .18 (me)

I am still waiting for a post from you substantiating the claims that you
made in .16, and will be periodically checking back in here to see if you
have posted anything.

I'm checking back in.  Been working, not much time for reading 
notes.

I'm surprised at the strong reaction people have
had in this note string.  Saying that there is legitimate
controversy over the Ezzos isn't front page news.  No need
to get huffy about it.

I'm a few years removed from watching the controversy, and don't 
have the Ezzo's books, so I can't give an exhaustive line by
line refutation.  Here are some pointers.

Bill Sears.  He IS a Pediatrician.  That means he's a Physician.  I 
understand from previous notes that this is a sort of curse.  His 
concerns were related to the Ezzo's rigid (in his opinion) feeding 
plan.  Ask him for specifics.

Dr. Dobson.  Ask Focus on the Family for specifics.

The church in Pasadena is Lake Avenue Congregational Church, I think 
the address is 100 N Lake Ave.,  Pasadena, CA.  About 4000 attending
and a solid evangelical Christian church.  Ask them for a copy of their 
letter.   This was a few years back.

Apologies if I ruffled anyone's feathers, but my intention was not
gossip.  It was to call attention to the fact that there are issues around
the Ezzo program.  Choose to look into it, or don't.

The only opinion I expressed was that  "Growing kids God's Way"
is a pretty presumptuous title and attitude.  Only a few people have had
Revealed Truth given to them in the past, and the Ezzos  came across to us
as almost putting themselves in that category.

Cheers

Don Randall

Re: .38  (Don Randall)

>Bill Sears.  He IS a Pediatrician.  That means he's a Physician.  I 
>understand from previous notes that this is a sort of curse.  His 
>concerns were related to the Ezzo's rigid (in his opinion) feeding 
>plan.  Ask him for specifics.

Don, I really think that it is you who has an obligation to be specific.
I have read the Ezzo's material.  There are ample checks and balances in
place to make sure that the child is getting enough milk/food.  In fact,
the Ezzos explicitly teach against a "rigid" feeding plans.  They refer to
it as "clock feeding".  The method that the Ezzos advocate is what they
call "Parent-directed feeding" ("PDF"), which advocates a regular feeding
schedule, while calling for flexibility given the context of the situation
and the child's individual needs (as opposed to wants or demands).

Don, you were the one who implicated the Ezzo's program.  So I think you
owe it to yourself and the readership to either back up your claims or
retract them.

It sounds like your source of information is hearsay, twice removed from
the source.

>Dr. Dobson.  Ask Focus on the Family for specifics.

Again, I don't think it is appropriate to throw out an accusation, based
entirely on hearsay, and then charge the reader to go out and research it
for you.  Why don't *you* ask Focus on the Family for specifics.  My wife
and I are regular supporters of Focus on the Family, and receive their
periodicals and letters.  I don't recall reading anything about GFI in 
their material.  So I would be very interested in knowing the "specifics."

>The church in Pasadena is Lake Avenue Congregational Church, I think 
>the address is 100 N Lake Ave.,  Pasadena, CA.  About 4000 attending
>and a solid evangelical Christian church.  Ask them for a copy of their 
>letter.   This was a few years back.

So can we assume that you have never even seen the letter, let alone read
it and investigated its claims?  And can I assume that you don't know who
the "them" specifically are?

By the way, the Ezzos also attend a large, solid evangelical Christian
church.  It is Grace Community Church (John MacArthur's church).

>Apologies if I ruffled anyone's feathers, but my intention was not
>gossip.  It was to call attention to the fact that there are issues around
>the Ezzo program.  Choose to look into it, or don't.

Regardless of your intentions, I call it gossip, pure and simple.  Suppose I
heard some hearsay about your own Christian walk, then based on that hearsay,
claimed in a public forum like this that there existed controversy about your
lifestyle and practices.  Then when challenged, suppose I excuse myself from
citing specifics, and invite the reader to look into it for themselves?  How
would you feel about that? 

>The only opinion I expressed was that  "Growing kids God's Way"
>is a pretty presumptuous title and attitude.  Only a few people have had
>Revealed Truth given to them in the past, and the Ezzos  came across to us
>as almost putting themselves in that category.

Your juxtaposition of the title "Growing Kids God's Way" with the phrase
"Revealed Truth" is uncalled for.  As far as I know, the Ezzos have never
claimed to have received any special revelation beyond the canon of scripture.

re:  -1

I'll give this a reply, but I'm not inclined to argue back
and forth.  Raising kids is the toughest thing I've done, and
continues to be.  I'm sympathetic to what the Ezzos want
to do, and you should be commended for taking seriously the job, 
and for trying to do it Biblically.  I'm trying to do the same.  
Recognize, though, that people will disagree with the  way to
implement a given principle, and that within the bounds of 
biblical truth, there needs to be room for, and acceptance of 
those differences.

Some points:  (I use a PeeCee, so have marked off the quoted
parts with a >)

>
Don, I really think that it is you who has an obligation to be specific.
I have read the Ezzo's material.  There are ample checks and balances in
place to make sure that the child is getting enough milk/food.  In fact,
the Ezzos explicitly teach against a "rigid" feeding plans.  They refer to
it as "clock feeding".  The method that the Ezzos advocate is what they
call "Parent-directed feeding" ("PDF"), which advocates a regular feeding
schedule, while calling for flexibility given the context of the situation
and the child's individual needs (as opposed to wants or demands).
>

Bill Sears is an advocate of on-demand feeding.   He's written books
about raising kids.  He disagrees, and sees negative consequences to
a " clock feeding" schedule.  It's an honest disagreement.

>
Don, you were the one who implicated the Ezzo's program.  So I think you
owe it to yourself and the readership to either back up your claims or
retract them.

It sounds like your source of information is hearsay, twice removed from
the source.
>

My point is that there is controversy, not to make the claims of the
 controversy.  There is a difference.  If I were considering adopting the
 Ezzos method, I'd want to know that there is  controversy and where
 to go to ask about it, before buying in.

My sources of information are the Ezzos themselves, in person and on the 
radio, the church, and other articles.  We had little kids a few
years ago, and when friends of ours in the same boat were investigating
the Ezzos, we did the same.   Unfortunately, we didn't keep the stuff.

>
for you.  Why don't *you* ask Focus on the Family for specifics.  My wife
and I are regular supporters of Focus on the Family, and receive their
periodicals and letters.  I don't recall reading anything about GFI in 
their material.  So I would be very interested in knowing the "specifics."

So can we assume that you have never even seen the letter, let alone read
it and investigated its claims?  And can I assume that you don't know who
the "them" specifically are?
>

You assume wrong.  I had the letter, read it, and agreed with the points they
made.   It was a few years ago, and as we're not considering using this 
program, I think I discarded it.  I brought up Focus, as the base note mentioned
that Dobson carefully declined to endorse the program.  You can write them
for specifics.

>
By the way, the Ezzos also attend a large, solid evangelical Christian
church.  It is Grace Community Church (John MacArthur's church).
>

I'm well aware of this, and of the church.

>
Regardless of your intentions, I call it gossip, pure and simple.  Suppose I
heard some hearsay about your own Christian walk, then based on that hearsay,
claimed in a public forum like this that there existed controversy about your
lifestyle and practices.  Then when challenged, suppose I excuse myself from
citing specifics, and invite the reader to look into it for themselves?  How
would you feel about that? 
>


The point was already made publicly  (broadcast TV).  My point was, that
within the Christian community there is also controversy.  That's 
my point.  You analogy is not a relevant one, as this is a public issue, while
my Christian walk, my integrity, etc. is a personal one, and I'd expect to be
dealt with as in Matt. 18.

>

Your juxtaposition of the title "Growing Kids God's Way" with the phrase
"Revealed Truth" is uncalled for.  As far as I know, the Ezzos have never
claimed to have received any special revelation beyond the canon of scripture.
>

The title, "Growing kids God's Way" implies that they have the one way 
sanctioned by God to raise kids.  Now, if the Bible specifically spelled out
the things that the Ezzos claimed, then they would be accurate in saying that
they were explaining God's way to raise kids.  The Bible does not do that -
 it makes no mention of feeding schedules, for example, that I have found.  But, the 
title, and the attitude that I have (personally in presentations and on the 
radio) heard from the Ezzos implies that their book describes God's way 
to raise kids.  

So, if another Christian advocates something that disagrees with the Ezzo's 
method, the feeling I received is that they would contrary to God's way.   This is 
the problem I have with them personally.  The other sources have other, 
specific problems.  


Don Randall

    
    Hi Don,
    
    Demand feeding is one of the single greatest obstacles to a happy
    family life.  It is bad for a child and is bad for the family.  It is
    strictly a construct of the medical establishment with no history to 
    support its practice.
    
    We demand fed our first child for only a few weeks.  Our son had colic
    and demand feeding only made it worse!!  The medical establishment was
    totally incapable of solving his colic problem (and our family problems
    since no one could sleep and he couldn't eat for the pain).
    
    Demand feeding is stupid!!!  It takes precisely 3 hours for mother's
    milk to be digested.  It takes 4 hours for soy milk to be digested. 
    Any introduction of food during the time of digestion destroys the
    chemical balance in the stomach and negatively effects digestion,
    particularly the movement of food into the small intestine.  It is
    stupid to feed a child who cannot be hungry.
    
    Our four children were not fed on a demand system at all.  In fact we
    were extremely regimented in their feeding at the instruction of our
    pediatrician (who is now 98 years old).  Our children, and our lives,
    were different from everyone elses and our children are the absolute
    picture of health, truly perfect specimens physically (well, their
    parents good genes helped of course ;) ).
    
    Demand feeding is one of the most sinister concepts to come out of the
    humanistic medical establishment.  It's basis is not science but
    humanist philosophy and psychology.  There's nothing good about it, it
    is all bad and has made the lives of many parents terrible.
    
    jeff
    

    
    BTW, Since the Ezzos are members of Grace (the church which MacArthur
    pastors), it is highly unlikely that they are fundamentalists or
    separatists, as I had cautioned earlier.
    
    jeff

    Grace is a pretty mainstream evangelical church in LA.  I also wouldn't
    call it fundamentalist or "separtist".

    RE demand feeding, this is a bit overstated.  "one of the single
    greatest obstacles to a happy family life?"  I don't think so.  Things
    like domestic violence, divorce, drugs, not knowing Christ come to
    mind.  

    
    I was sure some folks would think I overstated the case concerning
    demand feeding and its impact on family life.  I speak from much
    personal experience and observation.
    
    I did say "*one* of the single greatest obstacles to a happy family
    life".  You may believe one has to have serious problems before family
    life is impacted negatively but there are many, many daily things which
    are not sinful which can affect family life terribly negatively, such
    as demand feeding, for example.  Lack of proper, consistent discipline is 
    another (but this is sinful on the parents part, of course).  Husbands
    who don't take the proper responsibility for their family life is
    another. And so on.
    
    jeff 

Re: .41 (Jeff Benson)

Regarding your tirade against demand feeding, I want to say "Amen" to that.
We were naive enough to demand-feed our firstborn for the first 4 weeks.
After reaching the end of our rope after the baby fed for something like
6 hours non-stop, we consulted a couple of wise old ladies at church who
set us straight on the matter.  We put the baby on a schedule, and from 
that point onward we were all (baby included) the happier for it, and the
baby began sleeping through the night, consistently.  Baby #2 and Baby #3
were started on a schedule and also slept through the night regularly from
roughly 6 weeks on.

I want to provide a word of caution regarding your note, however.  Although
a regular 3-4 hour feeding schedule is appropriate in the vast majority of
cases, there are legitimate exceptions to the rule.  Some examples include
conditions such as pyloric stenosis and other related conditions in which
the baby can't get it down and/or keep it down, premature babies, and so
on. 

And of course context and common sense come into play.  Suppose you are on
a crowded airplane and your baby begins to get restless and cry.  In 
consideration of your fellow passengers, it may be best to pacify the baby
by putting him to the breast/bottle.

Contrary to what Don Randall continues to allege, the GFI program and 
materials warn against undue rigidity in implementing a baby's schedule.

Re: .40  (Don Randall)

Don, you have claimed that there is "honest controversy" about the Ezzos
and GFI parenting programs.  Thus far, I have not heard any "honest
controversy", only *dishonest* controversy.  By "dishonest", I mean people
saying things that aren't true about what the Ezzos and GFI teach, in their
attempt to discredit them.

You are treading that line yourself now, in several ways.  In .40, you
continued to maintain that GFI advocates "clock feeding", even after I 
informed you that the Ezzos explicitly teach *against* rigid clock feeding.

The following excerpt is from _Preparation For Parenting_ (3rd Ed., 1990,
pp. 46-47)

    -----------------------------------------------------------------

CLOCK FEEDING (HYPER-SCHEDULING)

    As we moved into the twentieth century the mothering pendulum began to
swing completely away from breast-feeding.  With the aide of science and
technology, American mothers were introduced to a scientific algebraic
equation called 'formula'.  With formula and bottle-feeding came the
practice of 'clock feeding' and 'hyper-scheduling'.  The clock and the
number of ounces in the bottle, not the child's hunger, became the final
authority as to when the child was fed.

    A number of factors contributed to the change in maternal attitudes.
One in particular was the influence of behaviorist J.B. Watson who postulated
that a child would become what he was taught to be. [4] [Footnote 4: "See
J.B. Watson's 'Psychological Care of Infant and Child' (New York: W.W. Norton
and Co., 1928)"]

    Like other behaviorists, he was not concerned about the person inside
the body, just the body -- not with feelings and developing emotions, only
physiological structure.  You can't hurt a baby's feelings, Watson theorized,
because he has none.  Watson, like Skinner, held to a non-person theory of
humanity and considered life to be a cosmic accident.

    Although he theories flirted with the truth, he went far beyond it with
his mechanistic approach to infant care.  Watson believed a strict regimented
schedule would produce a regimented child in all aspects of life, that a
controlled environment would produce a self-controlled child.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------

Another thing that you continue to bring up is that you feel that the
Ezzos make presumptuous claims about their parenting program being "God's
Way".  You paint a false and misleading picture about the Ezzos coming
across as having revealed extrabiblical truth, when in fact they specifically
say they don't.

One particular case in point that you cite in defense of your position
is the title of one of their parenting programs, "Growing Kids God's Way."

Now, I happen to know the history behind that title.  It is actually a
point of humor among GFI leadership on how it came about.  The story goes
that Gary Ezzo was sitting outside in his yard with some of his friends, 
and someone asked something like "So, what are we going to call this new
parenting program?"  Gary was looking at a cabbage patch in his vegetable 
garden and thought that it might be cute to dig a hole in the ground next
to the cabbages, put a small child in it, and take a photograph of this
child looking like he was growing out of the ground like the cabbages.  
So he replied "How about 'Growing Kid's God's Way,'" and proposed his
"kid in the cabbage patch" photograph idea.  Well, as the story goes, they
actually tried pulling this stunt.  They dug a hole, lined it on the
inside with a brown paper bag, and tried putting a 15-month-old in it.  By
the time they got the camera situated, the kid had already lost the sense
of novelty of the situation, and was climbing out of the hole in the 
ground, fussing, and not particularly looking very happy about the whole
thing.  Needless to say, they gave it up.  The name, however, stuck.

So there you have it.  The story behind the title.  Not exactly a picture
of a man caught up in a delusion of inspiration or divine revelation, as
you presumed.

Addressing your concern in a more general sense, I excerpted the introduction
in _Growing Kids God's Way_ that describes its foundations, and am posting
this as a separate reply.  If you or the interested reader will take the time
to read this, you will see that it teaches just the opposite of what you
say GFI teaches.  It makes the point (your point) that the Bible says nothing
about such things as feeding schedules.  It makes the point that we 
*cannot* be dogmatic about issues which scripture does not explicitly or
in principle teach.

The following reply is an excerpt from the Ezzo's book, _Growing Kids
God's Way_.  It documents the doctrinal, philosophical, and practical
foundations for the book.

The following reply is 245 lines long.

'Growing Kids God's Way' Fourth Edition
Copyright 1993, by Gary and Anne Marie Ezzo
Published by Growing Families International Press
Chatsworth, California 91311

All rights reserved.  No portion of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form, by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or otherwise, without the
prior permission of the publisher, except as provided by USA copyright
laws.

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number TX 3 291 885
ISBN 1-883035-11-2

The following is excerpted with permission.

THE FOUNDATIONS OF GROWING KIDS GOD'S WAY
-----------------------------------------

Growing Kids God's Way is based upon the belief that childrearing is a 
responsibility given by God to parents.  Parents are to guide, nurture,
and discipline their children.  This resource serves as a guide to help
accomplish that task.  Our curriculum is not intended to give all the
answers or to provide readers with all they will ever need to know as
parents.  Our major emphasis is on the moral training of parents and
children.

    The basis for Growing Kids God's Way is a theological framework and
the experience and research that we have acquired in the process of 
successfully rearing our own children.  However, it is only one perspective
assisting parents in their responsibilities.  While biblical doctrine
provides the basis for parental standards, Scripture has very few specific
mandates for practical applications.  Guided by the Holy Spirit, parents
have the ultimate responsibility and duty to research the parenting 
philosophies available today to determine if they are in line with
Scripture.

    The following premises and guidelines were used in putting Growing
Kids God's Way together.  We present them here so the basis on which we
established the curriculum is clear to the reader.

FOUNDATIONAL PREMISES

The ministry of reconciliation is the first duty of parents (2 Corinth-
ians 5:18-20).  What shall motivate them to faithfully discharge their
duties?  They have an appointment to keep with God to give an account for
the resource of life with which God entrusted them.  The good news is that
parents are not left without direction.  They have a sure revelation --
the Bible.

    The Bible provides with certainty the ethical standards necessary for
successful living.  With these standards comes a clear moral mandate, "Be
ye holy; for I am holy" (1 Peter 1:16).  Practical holiness is not merely
a state of mind but a lifestyle -- a moral lifestyle, one in which parents
are to instruct their children (Ephesians 6:4).  Moral training in the
Christian home should equate to training in biblical virtues and values.
The duty, hope, and goal of Christian parents is to raise a morally
responsible child who comes to salvation in Jesus Christ, who's life is
governed by the precepts of Christ, and one who reflects the love of Christ.

    But what about the non-Christian?  Can non-Christian parents raise a
morally responsible child apart from Christ?  A better question is:  Can
an unregenerate child conform to the external demands of God's law?  We
believe the answer to both questions is yes -- many do it everyday.  For
we know there are times which even the fool is considered wise (Proverbs
17:28).  The ability to do morally right deeds (descriptively speaking) is
part of the communicable attributes of God, transferred with His image
(Genesis 1:27).  That means that unregenerate man has the capacity to make
right moral choices, but none of his efforts and good works can gain him
his salvation (Isaiah 64:6).  Practically, it means parents cannot raise
godly children apart from regeneration.

    We know in the last days there will be those who "hold to a form of
godliness, although they have denied its power" (2 Timothy 3:5a).  Jesus
warned against the false assumption that you can become godly through
training.  He spoke against the righteousness found in those who trust in
themselves as being positionally righteous or justified because of their
moral accomplishments (Matthew 23:28; Luke 16:15, 18:9).  He taught that
the truly justified (i.e., the godly) are those who acknowledge their sin
and trust in God for forgiveness and His righteousness (John 14:6; Matthew
23:27-28; Luke 18:9-14; Romans 3:23, 27-28).  Apart from regeneration, the
fullness and purpose of life will always be in doubt, and both motive and
reality of righteousness are always in question.  Positionally speaking,
becoming godly is a personal decision, not a parental one.  Practically
speaking, the starting point of moral training for everyone is nothing less
than the ethical standards left to us by Christ.  For the regenerate and
unregenerate heart, the only standard of right, wrong, good, and evil is
God's standard of right, wrong, good, and evil.

    Three Assumptions and the Biblical Model

Although the Bible provides moral ideals, it does not provide parents with
the exact how-to's for parenting.  It offers clues to child training, but
not a detailed blueprint that speaks to every action.  Those facts are
relevant to this presentation and the formation of our thoughts.

    'Growing Kids God's Way' is guided by three basic assumptions.  As 
stated in the previous paragraph, the first assumption is that the goal of
parenting is to raise, by way of salvation, a morally responsible and
biblically responsive child.  What is it that God requires of us?  "He has
shown you O man what is good.  And what does the Lord require of you, but
to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?" (Micah 6:8).

    The second assumption, as also stated previously, is that the Bible
does not provide us with exact details on how to raise children.  It
provides some basic principles, but does not specifically lay out the
how-to's of training.  Our third assumption is based on the relationship
of the first two.  Since the goal of parenting is to produce a morally
responsible child, and since the Bible is not specific on how to accomplish
that goal, we believe that all child-training principles, practices,
methods, and theories should meet two important criteria:

1.  They must advance the righteous goal of raising children (Ephesians 6:4).

2.  They must be compatible with the breadth of biblical theology.  In
contrast, any theory that detracts from, is antagonistic to, or restricts
the Bible by creating unbiblical prohibitions and assertions will be 
inadequate.  The methods of training must advance the goal.

    This third assumption is in need of further clarification.  There are
many theories on how to parent a child, but most theories fall seriously
short of biblical compatibility.  For example, some educational theorists
believe humanity to be the end product of millions of years of evolutionary
forces.  From that assumption, they reason that every child is born morally
good; that is, they have the capacity for evil but not the desire.  They
then develop child educational theories on those assumptions.  But such
premises are not reflective of either reality or biblical truth.  On the
contrary, they are antagonistic to biblical revelation.  "The fool has
said in his heart 'There is no God.'" (Psalm 14:1a).  Human reason
substituted for revelation is grossly inadequate to explain the human
experience.  Man is not the end product of a cosmic accident but of Divine
intention (Genesis 1:26).  A child is not born morally good but with a 
natural predisposition for moral waywardness. [1] [Footnote 1:  Scripture
references:  All men and women are conceived as sinners (Psalms 51:5, 58:3).
All are born sinful (Jeremiah 13:23; Ephesians 2:2-3).  All are born under
the penalty of sin (Romans 5:12-14).  All have sin underlying their
conscience (Psalm 19:12; Jeremiah 17:9).]

    Some teachers restrict the Bible by imposing unbiblical prohibitions on
others.  One way that is done is to reclassify nonbiblical concepts as
being unbiblical.  There is a difference between the two categories 'non-
biblical' and 'unbiblical'.  Nonbiblical refers to concepts that are extra-
biblical (in addition to, yet not antagonistic to the Scriptures).
Unbiblical is defined as ideas that are antibiblical, or contrary to the
Scriptures.  For example, foolishness is spoken of in the Bible, but
childishness is not.  Childish acts, as described here, are the innocent
mistakes children make.  We deduce our understanding of childish behavior
from common observations of children and not from what we glean from the
Bible.  They study of childish behavior is nonbiblical.  This topic should
not be considered unbiblical, because it is not antibiblical.

    The Bible plays the role of supreme falsifier.  It has the authority
to falsify incompatible assumptions, theories, concepts, and statements.
In relation to childishness, there are no premises associated with the
classification that can be proven incompatible with biblical law or
principle.  Nor does the general category detract from biblical revelation.

    The confusion between nonbiblical and unbiblical can also be seen in
the following line of thinking:  "If the Bible doesn't state it, I cannot
accept it."  That argument is a 'term-concept fallacy'.  This fallacy states
that biblical truth is only communicated in the specific terms found in
Scripture and that acceptable behavior, counsel, or practice must always be
supported by statements directly approved by Scripture.  That type of
restrictive bibliology does not leave room for systematic theology.  Thus,
it does away with such doctrines as the trinity, sin nature, depravity,
rapture, and biblical anthropology, to name a few -- none of which the Bible
specifically mentions but are derived through systematic study.

    Term-concept fallacy does not leave room for extrabiblical concepts that
exist compatibly with the Bible.  For example, the Bible is silent regarding
premarital counseling.  Does that make it an unbiblical practice?  It is
silent regarding motivating children with star charts.  Is that unbiblical?
It is silent regarding Sunday or Wednesday evening services.  Are they
wrong?  Biblical silence on an issue is not automatically equivalent to
biblical disapproval.  These thoughts will be expanded and discussed more
extensively in Chapter 2.  For now, it is enough to say that we have made
every effort to avoid both extremes when putting 'Growing Kids God's Way'
together.

SCRIPTURE STARTING POINT

Biblical parenting must spring forth from the canon of Scripture.  To
reject revelational absolutes makes all moral theology relative and subject
to private interpretation.  The starting points of 'Growing Kids God's Way'
are progressive.  That is, we start with the authority of Scripture, then
move to the statements of Scripture.

    The Authority of Scripture

Church history records the clear acceptance of the fact that the Bible was
given to man from God.  Except for heretical divisions that broke away from
the church, it has generally been assumed that Scripture was completely
authoritive and trustworthy in all of its assertions.  Reformer, Martin
Luther once commented, "When the Bible speaks, God speaks."  We accept the
Bible as morally authoritative and sufficient.  It is authoritative in that
it requires a response to its demands.  It is sufficient in that man can
participate in the full grace of God when the principles of God become the
practice of man.

    The Statements of Scripture

We move from the authority of Scripture to the specific statements of
Scripture.  We have divided these statements into two divisions.  The
first relates to man's origin and descriptive anthropological declarations
such as Genesis 1:26, "Let us make man in our own image," or "The heart
is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"
(Jeremiah 17:9).  The second division speaks to man's nature and the moral
requirement associated with raising children in the nurture and admonition
of the Lord (Ephesians 6:4).  The following summary represents our beliefs
about man's origin and his nature.

[Deleted:  Man's Origin
           Man's Nature
                1. Self-Legislation
                2.  Self-Gratification
           TRAINING THE HEART
           Moral and Self-Control Training
           THE PARENT FACTOR
           THE EXTREMES OF PARENTING
           Authoritarian Parenting
           Permissive Parenting]

SUMMARY

Based on the above premises and beliefs, we have divided our curriculum into
two emphases.  The first is represented by biblical law and principle.  That
represents the moral correctness required by Scripture.  The second emphasis
represents developmental methods and applications that aid the process of
instilling values in our children.  The methods and applications are the
vehicles delivering the biblical principles.  Be careful not to confuse the
vehicle with the principle.  The principles come from God's word; the 
vehicles come from the personal experience we have found to advance the goal
in training.  The latter is the theoretical and personal side of child
training, because Scripture does not concretely address the methods, just
righteous objectives.  The two emphases are woven together throughout the
curriculum.

    Finally, it is from a biblical moral perspective that we based this
program.  The tools of our endeavor included prayer, observation, experience,
personal study, common wisdom, and most importantly, the Holy Spirit.  We
are a husband and wife, a faother and mother, co-laborers in ministry, and
two observers of human nature.  It is our desire that the truth presented on
the pages to follow fall somewhere between correction and challenge,
enlightenment and confirmation.  If there be any weakness, it is in our
presentation and not in the biblical principles we attempt to represent.

On a lighter note, I found out that the ABC/Jennings news clip backfired
(on the critics, that is).  Evidently, GFI sales of literature went up
20% in the week following the news broadcast, and ABC has been inundated
with calls from people wanting to know how to contact GFI to learn more
about their program.

re.46  Garth,
    
>I want to provide a word of caution regarding your note, however.  Although
>a regular 3-4 hour feeding schedule is appropriate in the vast majority of
>cases, there are legitimate exceptions to the rule.  Some examples include
>conditions such as pyloric stenosis and other related conditions in which
>the baby can't get it down and/or keep it down, premature babies, and so
>on. 
    
    Oh, be sure that our feeding methods were directed by a bona fide
    pediatrician and all of our children were lacking health problems.
    I have praised God repeatedly that we have had access to such a doctor
    as Dr. Denmark and I have lamented the total lack of such wisdom
    available to most folks.  Outside of something such as the Ezzo's have
    provided, and even with it in many cases, the cultural and professional 
    resistance to a biblical basis of child-rearing is almost insurmountable.
    It is generally impossible to get the medical establishment to presume
    a different context from the one they have authorized for the 
    administration of medicine and advice.  It seems HMOs, which almost
    half of our country now uses, are even more restrictive and dogmatic
    making it even more difficult to deviate from their dogma.
    
    There really is little reason to hope that any significantly positive
    developments will occur in the dogma of the medical establishment.  As 
    long as our country (individuals) continues down the path of humanism and 
    unbelief and away from God's standards, our institutions will reflect 
    that same trend.  And we're way down that road at this point.
    
    jeff