“To Train Up a Child contains the methods of "traditional child training that parents have done for thousands of years in all cultures and all religions,"- Follow up post
“I am the General” –
Some
thoughts on Michael Pearl’s teachings
Thanks Tina for sending me the
book “To Train Up A Child” (1994 Edition) by Michael Pearl. I've been reading
it lately and find it very interesting.
Michael Pearl clearly has a
military background or orientation. This is what his website says about him and
his wife: “He worked with Union Mission in Memphis for 25 years, while he and
Debi also ministered to the many military families in Memphis and
pastored churches.” (http://nogreaterjoy.org/about-us/meet-the-pearls/)
You definitely get that
feeling when you read his book. On pages 68-69 of his book he says the following:
"I am the General.
My wife is my aid and adviser [clearly his military adviser as we will see] - the
first in command when I am absent. ... I lead, not command from a distant
bunker. ... If they [his children] ever failed to instantly obey a command,
I would 'drill' them. ... Just like little, proud soldiers, of
they would go to the task."
This book is in fact full of
this military talk. Anything wrong with the military? No. Not at all, but
mixing the military with the Christian religion does have some issues that have
to be taken into consideration.
God is indeed a king and an
omnipotent being whose power knows no limits according to Scripture, but does
he run things like a military general? No, He does not.
It is interesting that the
military is very much hierarchically oriented going from the lowly buck private
up to the pinnacle of the four stars general. It is true that God, as I said,
is the ruler of heaven and earth and He has a host of beings “underneath” Him
and there are elements of hierarchy in some aspects of His ruler ship of the
universe, but it is also quite interesting that time and again in the Bible,
God over and over again violates the hierarchical principle of leadership and
ruler ship seemingly against what we can call these military or hierarchical
ruler ship systems.
Let’s look at a couple of
examples.
Start at the very beginning.
Look at Cain and Abel. Abel was the baby of the family and he was the one whose
actions were deemed righteous before God, Cain was the elder and in the hierarchical
way of looking at it, he should have been the leader, but he was the one who
committed a heinous sin.
Let’s not stop there. Study
the life of Abraham. Was he the hierarchical leader? The tribal chieftain?
No.
Abraham, once again, was the youngest in his family.
Go again to Esau and Jacob.
Jacob was the younger and received greater blessings than Esau.
What about Moses? Yes, Moses
was not the eldest at all. He was the youngest. No hierarchy here.
What about David? The eldest?
Not hardly. He had seven older brothers.
What about Solomon? Solomon
had many older brothers. He was the youngest.
What about St. Paul? He was
from the least of all the tribes of Israel: Benjamin.
You start to get this idea
about hierarchy in Scripture. God is not operating according to this principle.
This cannot be made clearer than in Luke 22:
“A dispute also arose among
them, as to which of them was to be regarded as the greatest. And he said to
them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority
over them are called benefactors. [just like military generals and Roman
emperors] But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the
youngest, and the leader as one who serves. For who is the greater, one who
reclines at table or one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table?
But I am among you as the one who serves.” (Luke 22:24-27 ESV)
This should surprise no one –
God a being who serves us. Maybe this passage rings a bell:
“The LORD is my shepherd; I
shall not want. He makes me lie down in green pastures. He leads me beside
still waters. He restores my soul. He leads me in paths of righteousness for his name's sake. Even though I walk through
the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me;
your rod and your staff, they comfort me. You prepare a table before me in
the presence of my enemies; you anoint my head with oil; my cup overflows.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life, and I shall
dwell in the house of the LORD forever.” (Psalm 23 ESV)
The leader as one who serves:
this is God’s way and what Jesus clearly taught us. Beware of these General
types who like to “command from bunkers.” Some of them can lead us astray if we
are not careful.
This is clearly the case
concerning General Pearl. He seems to have left his military career and gotten
into the ministry, but much of his military “training” has stayed with him in
his ministry.
This clearly comes through in
his writing. Like a good General, he likes to generalize.
Here is a quote he gave from a
recent interview where he said the following about his book:
“To Train Up a Child contains
the methods of "traditional child training that parents have done for
thousands of years in all cultures and all religions," Pearl argued. “And
it's not information primarily derived from the Bible, not at all. My parents
trained me up in the way that I trained my children, and my children are now
training up their children the same way."
This is in fact an allusion to
his book. Michael Pearl actually believes this statement, but he is dead wrong.
Unfortunately, it seems that General Pearl obtained a BS, but it seems he did
not read too many history books along the way. Had he have, he would realize
that often you cannot generalize when it comes to historical facts. We should
not be too surprised though because of the almost 80 quotes I could find in his
book, they were all from the King James Version of the Bible with 2/3rds of
these from the Old Testament.
Nothing wrong with the King James
Version, but if you are living in Tennessee trying to understand information
that was happening several thousand miles away across an ocean some three
thousand years ago using tools that are themselves 400 years old, you’re going
to perhaps have limitations in understanding. I mean some of us are doing our
best to work with Scripture in the modern world of the Internet, the IPAD and
the IPHONE, while others are still using tin cans with strings attached to
communicate. Anything wrong with a two tin cans and string? No, but when it
comes to understanding Scripture, give me an IPHONE and an IPAD over two tin
cans and piece of string.
So let’s look at his
generalization referenced above: "traditional child training that parents
have done for thousands of years in all cultures and all religions," Pearl
argued. "And it's not information primarily derived from the Bible, not at
all.”
So, as the good General tells
us, he is just doing what ‘all cultures and all religions” have been doing for
“thousands of years.” Well, let’s check this out.
Don’t Generalize
When I was in college, I
followed the BA track and took lots of courses on history, sociology,
anthropology, etc. I even earned a minor in anthropology as a part of my degree
which focused on Middle Eastern studies.
Early on in my academic
experience, I was given a solid lesson in not generalizing. I was writing this
paper about Europe and made some really ridiculous generalizations in the
paper. I was talking about what was taking place in “Europe” in the 14th
century. To hear me tell it, “Europe” at that time just represented on
homogeneous group with little difference or distinction and this is where I got
rightfully corrected.
My teacher told me: Sam, this
is an ‘A” paper, but don’t GENERALIZE. To say that what was happening in
Bohemia in the 14th century was the same thing as what was taking
place in Paris or Copenhagen during the same period is just really silly
nonsense and my teacher was right. I remembered that lesson still today just as
clear as it was now some 20 years ago when I was in university.
So generalizing is dangerous
territory, but General Pearl marches right in. To say that “all cultures and
all religions” have done what General Pearl is doing today is absolutely
ridiculous.
Let’s look at a case study.
There is a great book called
“The Child in Christian Thought” (Eerdmans: 2000) edited by Professor Marcia
Bunge who is one of the giants in the child theology movement. Professor Bunge
has written a number of books and in fact we are waiting for a new to come out
this year which promises to be her most exciting offering yet. This book
contains essays from the cream of the global theological world currently
dealing with the subject of child theology.
In that book, there is a
chapter titled: ‘Wonderful Affection’: Seventeenth Century Missionaries to New
France on Children and Childhood by Clarissa Atkinson, Associate Dean for
Academic Affairs at the Harvard Divinity School.
Let’s look at a few quotes
from this article because it is very relevant to our discussion here. The
subject of the article is the experience of French missionaries in Eastern
Canada and their dealings with the native indigenous populations.
These missionaries left
written records and they had some very interesting things to say about their
impressions of the habits and customs of the native peoples. They also compared
these customs and habits with their own, which they considered much more
civilized and inspired by the God of heaven.
“Along with the gospel,
Christian missionaries carried to the New World distinct and deeply held
beliefs and assumptions about children and childhood. Such beliefs and
assumptions are embedded in culture, and in Christian contexts associated also
with the theological anthropology of particular times, places, and religious
subgroups or denominations. In the seventeenth century, the ideologies of
childhood of Roman Catholic missionaries to New France drew them into close and
intense encounters with people of cultures radically unlike their own. To Jesuit
and Ursuline missionaries, the indigenous people of Eastern Canada held not
only different but horrifyingly mistaken views about many things – notable
among these, the nature, education, and discipline of children.” (pg. 227)
So, these missionaries about
400 years ago from Europe had some specific ideas about children in mind
(similar in fact to those of General Pearl), but what did they find in Eastern
Canada? Well, according to General Pearl, “all cultures and all religions” have
been doing what he is today doing for “thousands of years”, all except these
people in Eastern Canada that is.
This is because “the Jesuits,
enthusiastic proponents of the widespread belief in physical discipline among
early modern Europeans, insisted upon such punishment on their French schools.
Neither their humanist tradition nor their dedication to education countered
their acceptance of the general view that beating a child was a necessary and
appropriate part of moral and intellectual training.” (ibid, pg. 237)
To these well intentioned
French Europeans who went to Canada as missionaries among the native peoples,
they brought their belief in corporal punishment with them. But what did they
find when they arrived?
“The most striking and
significant comments by Jesuits on cultural differences concern the discipline,
punishment, and ‘spoiling’ of children. From the very beginning, the
missionaries were both struck by the Indians’ love for their children and
horrified at the way they raised them.
“They treat their children with wonderful affection, but they preserve
no discipline, for they neither themselves correct them not allow others to do
so.” (JR 1:277) This attitude and behavior interfered with instruction and
conversion. The theme is repeated over and over: children had to be taught in
boarding schools away from home because their parents would not allow them to
be properly trained – that is, subjected to the corporal punishment that was
taken for granted in French homes and schools.” (ibid.)
This phenomenon was not limited
to Canada. Note the following testimony from a Canadian missionary:
“All the Savage tribes of
these quarters, and of Brazil, as we are assured, cannot chastise a child or
see one chastised. How much trouble this will give us in carrying out our plans
of teaching the young.” (ibid, pg. 238)
A final thought summarizes how
these two groups (French missionaries and native communities) looked at each
other.
“The affection shown by native
adults toward children looked to the missionaries like spoiling, while French
discipline looked to the natives like incomprehensible brutality.” (ibid, pg.
240-241)
Let’s not put our heads in the
sand though. The native communities were not always 100% kind to all children,
especially orphans who were often treated brutally by the natives, but this
article illustrates an important point which we are here emphasizing:
I reiterate saying that this
article helps demonstrate that to say that “all cultures and all religions”
have done what General Pearl is doing today is not right. Just in this article
we have testimony from 17th century Canada referring also to the
same time period of native peoples also living in Brazil that they did not
follow this European model of child rearing which had corporal punishment as a
key element.
This is why our dear friend
the General needs to stop generalizing and start learning some facts about some
of the things he is asserting in his books and in his media appearances.
Let me conclude by saying that
I believe that the teachings in Mr. Michael Pearl’s books concerning corporal
punishment come out of this European tradition of corporal punishment and they
represent the very worst gutter theology (to quote Professor William Webb of
Toronto Seminary in Canada) on the religious book market today.
Those who purchase these books
are warned to take care to consider alternative points of view because the
teachings given by Pearl and his supporters is very narrow and lacks any
serious investigation of history, culture, sociology, anthropology, but rather
relies on opening up the King James Version of the Bible and pulling out a few
verses here and there and adapting it to a cultural lifestyle which is by no
means necessarily connected to the Biblical context at all.
