TulipGirl has posted some eye-opening quotes by "Christian" lifestyle guru Gary Ezzo on the subject of punishment and spanking. The guy devoted three chapters to spanking in his book. I'll write up some of my own thoughts on discipline of children in the future, but for today let's look at the Gary:
"A child knows when he has broken the rules, and his guilt continually reminds him of his violation. Guilt is the reminder of sin. Chastisement (Ezzo's term for spanking) is the price paid to remove the guilt thus [sic] free the child from his burden. If the parents do not remove the guilt, the child lives under the weight of sin. When an offense calls for chastisement, parents should chastise. If they substitute a lesser punishment, the guilt remains, and the child will suppress it. That, in turn, leads to more antisocial behavior." (GKGW p. 212)
Can you imagine? Maybe we're quirky, but in our family we rely on the blood of Christ to remove our children's guilt. And their sense of guilt as well. When they sin, there are sometimes consequences. But we have no delusions that these consequences cleanse them of guilt. We point them to Jesus for that.
You can see here that Ezzo's program doesn't truly view children as people. Why is it in his system that adults don't need to be physically hurt in order to be cleansed of guilt, but children do?
TulipGirl and I accept a Calvinistic view of life, which includes a belief that our children are in covenant with God. So we treat them not as Pavlovian sub-humans in need of conditioning, but rather as sinners in need of grace and sanctification. Works in progress. Just as we are ourselves.
Here's Gary's take:
"We cannot make a true comparison between a child's disobedience towards his parents and the parents' disobedience toward God. God does not deal with us on the basis of what we do, but on the basis of what Christ has done." (GKGW, p 317)
Lastly, this is interesting:
"The job of a parent is to transform the heart from what it is to what it should be." (GKGW p 308)
Actually, Gar, that would be the Holy Spirit's job.
Posted by Discoshaman at février 22, 2005 02:31 AM | TrackBack
Disco, you don't have to be a calvinist to recognize that this guy is a sick, twisted individual.
For the record, I can count the number of times I have had to spank my son on one hand. If Mr. Ezzo were to tell me to my face that I have raised an anti-social brat, I may just punch him in the nose. In christian love, of course.
From what I've read via your and your wife's sites - the guy Ezzo is one sick sonofagun.
Sick, Sick, Sick!!!
Posted by: Monica-Philadelphia at février 22, 2005 06:13 AMDisco,
While I carry no brief for Ezzo (who's pretty clearly shown his true colors over the years), I've frankly found some truth in this piece of advice. Granted, Ezzo probably takes it and hurls it right over the cliff as is his usual way, but I know that there have been several times (not daily as Ezzo would probably have it, not even monthly) when there was a palpable sense of relief on the part of our two kids when they were spanked for outright rebellious foolishness.
I've found that there is some truth to the notion that kids will naturally test boundaries and are actually hoping to be reined in while doing so.
Of course, none of this really changes yours and Tulipgirl's overall points about Ezzo's general lunacy, and about his tendency to substitute this piece of advise for the work of Christ. ;-)
Posted by: John R. at février 22, 2005 05:09 PMHmmmmmmm. Don't really know how to respond, since you and TulipGirl have such animosity toward Ezzo that I fear that if I introduce a more moderate opinion I'll be taken for a loon as well.
So let me stipulate a few things. First of all, I'm not crazy (at least not in the clinical sense). Second, from everything I've heard Gary Ezzo is kind of a weenie, with a super defensive attitude and whose followers exhibit insane cultic devotion. Third, a lot of his advice is bad and his theology is sometimes pretty muddled or outright wrong. Fourth, my Reformed credentials are solid, including an M.Div from Calvin Theological Seminary. Finally, my kids have turned out -- so far -- OK.
Those things being said, in fairness to Ezzo, I think he says that "chastisement" removes the child's perception of his/her guilt for misbehavior, not the actual guilt of sin. Not even Gary Ezzo thinks that you can spank sin-guilt out of a kid.
Look, I'm not going to defend the loony statements of Ezzo-cult members or whatever they said/did in the context of your experience with them. Let me just share my anectodal perspective on how we encounterd the whole Ezzo thing.
When our first child was born, in 1991, we were living northwest of Los Angeles, in Camarillo, CA. Through a network of neighbors, friends, coworkers, etc. we found ourselves surrounded by what we called Birth and Boob Nazis. The Bradley Birth people and the La Leche League folks. Noth that there is anything wrong with natural childbirth or breast feeding, but these people were hard-core and cultic in their approach (at least in the hippy cum yuppie cultures of Camarillo and Santa Barbara where we lived). Some examples:
The Bradley folks told us to have the kid at home, for example. Don't trust doctors or technological medicine. Use a midwife. We had neighbors who had complications in a home birth, were advised by paramedics that the baby's life was in danger because of a breach birth refused medical treatment, put the mother upside down on an ironing board and took their chances. We had a next door neighbor who suckled her kids until they turned 5. I kid you not... I saw one of the neighbor kids get off the bus from pre-school, come in and drop her backpack on the kitchen floor and ask her mom if she could nurse now. We had one lady who brought her 4 year old to the church office one afternoon BUCK NAKED because the kid wanted to be naked and to contradict the child might inhibit him later on.
And we called them Birth and Boob Nazis because they were the most intolerant, bigoted folks you ever met if you challenged them. They were strident, paranoid, defensive, overbearing in their beliefs.
For the record, my wife had both of our kids without drugs (in a hospital labor/delivery room) and breast fed both of them until they were old enough to switch to a bottle (around 6-7 months).
But the folks around us consistently chided, criticized, guilt-tripped us because we weren't hard-core enough. Our kids were going to grow up inhibited, uptight, unhealthy, Republican.
OK, this is where the Ezzos come in. When our son was about 2 1/2 some friends invited us to a Growing Kid's God's Way group at someone in the neighborhood's house.
In the context of a local subculture that seemed insanely liberal, permissive, boudaryless and in which precious little Southern California yuppie kids were turning out to be spoiled little brats, some of the ideas in the GKGW class seemed like a dose of common sense, reality and a breath of fresh air. The folks around us didn't discpline their kids -- and it showed. They had no control over their household, with the kids getting whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted at whatever time they wanted it -- and it showed. The kids had little or no moral anchor --- and it showed.
And about this spanking the guilt out of kids: as a parent and a pastor for 15 years -- and as a Calvinist -- I believe that our perceived awareness of guilt -- the realization that we have wronged someone close to us -- ruins our relationships. We withdraw and become defensive. Kids want to be in shalom with their parents. Husbands and wives want to be in shalom with each other. The same is true for coworkers, for fellow church members, for parishoners and pastors, etc. When we know that we have betrayed trust, spoken against, acted unfairly toward, been unfaithful to people close to us then we withdraw, become defensive, etc.
So we began to implement some of Ezzo's ideas with our son. We explained the moral and biblical reasons behind rules. We enforced consequences and didn't delay confronting problems. We did spank when it was necessary, and expressed love and forgiveness afterward.
And that is key with this whole idea of spanking for guilt: as I remember it, and as we practiced it, the point was that IMMEDIATELY after he was punished (whatever that punishment was) we dropped the issue. He had done something wrong, received the consequences, and now the HUMAN dimension of the guilt was gone. We weren't going to bring up the incident again, or hold it against him. It was done, over.
Look, we took this class for 10-12 weeks, found it to be a helpful counter-perspective in the subculture in which we were living. Since the class, I've never read anything by Ezzo, been on an Ezzo website or mailing list or even talked to anyone else about it. I'm not an Ezzo follower, and don't defend whatever they might say or do.
But hey, my experience with it wasn't that negative. Maybe there's a context -- an overly permissive liberal subculture -- where Ezzo's ideas were a helpful (over)correction. Maybe some of his strident followers are responding from a place where the dominant voice is extremely liberal and they are overreacting. Don't know, but I've met lost of nutcases on all sides of these issues.
Just thought I would give my own -- admittedly anecdotal -- perspective.
Posted by: Greg at février 22, 2005 07:55 PMI go into detail about Ezzo over at my blog.
Posted by: Protagonist at février 23, 2005 06:09 AMI have never once hit my kids! Never!
They're good girls, too - and know when they try to cross the line that there will be consequences. It's exhausting keeping up with it, but it works.
Posted by: Monica-Philadelphia at février 23, 2005 07:59 AMHmmmmmmm. Don't really know how to respond, since you and TulipGirl have such animosity toward Ezzo that I fear that if I introduce a more moderate opinion I'll be taken for a loon as well.
Greg, you’ve shown yourself to be far from a loon. *grin* You add a lot to the conversations here.
I think he says that "chastisement" removes the child's perception of his/her guilt for misbehavior, not the actual guilt of sin. Not even Gary Ezzo thinks that you can spank sin-guilt out of a kid.
Then, don’t you think he needs to be more careful with how he says things?
About the So. Cal extreme context. . .
It seems reasonable and understandable that Gary Ezzo’s original offering of parenting advice, in a context that seemed extreme and lacked any boundaries, did seem very refreshing and helpful, even if they were based more on behaviourism and 40s parenting ideas (as martha pointed out recently) than on the Bible.
Personally, I believe Gary and Anne Marie began their parenting ministry with an eye to really help families. However they were confronted about the Biblical, developmental and medical problems early on. Instead of being humble and being willing to adjust what they taught to fit the Bible and reality, they dug in their heels and continued with the problematic aspects of their teaching.
Gary Ezzo’s materials are manipulative. They may have more accurately reflected So.Cal. in the late 80s with the “secular mystic” vs. “Biblical Christianity” division, but those divisions present a false dichotomy for those outside of the subculture you described. (Especially considering I find his “Biblical” principles to not be more based on his own ideas than the Bible. . .)
". . .this whole idea of spanking for guilt: as I remember it, and as we practiced it, the point was that IMMEDIATELY after he was punished (whatever that punishment was) we dropped the issue. He had done something wrong, received the consequences, and now the HUMAN dimension of the guilt was gone. We weren't going to bring up the incident again, or hold it against him. It was done, over.
This is related to what John Rabe said, there have been several times (not daily as Ezzo would probably have it, not even monthly) when there was a palpable sense of relief on the part of our two kids when they were spanked for outright rebellious foolishness.
I’m not criticizing you guys, who seem like great fathers with a heart to raise your children to the glory of God.
But I want to ask--do we want the “palapable sense of relief” to come from a spanking/punishment? Do we want the punishment that we as parents give to be what “clears the air”?
I’m at the point in my practical theology that I’ve experienced the struggle that comes in relying upon Christ’s sacrifice alone. I keep wanting to “pay” for what I’ve done wrong (in God’s sight--not simply making restitution to those I’ve wronged.) Even though I know that I could never merit God’s grace, I keep wanting to earn His favor.
As Cindy commented on a related thread earlier this week, we sinful humans don’t want to rely upon God’s grace alone.
I understand the sense of relief that comes after a spanking--but now I don’t want my kids to find that “relief” or sense of closure from punishment.
Instead, when they sin, I want to point them to their Savior, point them to Christ who has already taken the punishment for that very sin, and help them accept God’s grace and forgiveness. I want to help learn what a “posture of repentance” looks like, as Paul Kooistra calls it, as well as helping the receive God’s grace.
We do discipline our children. We do enforce boundaries. Those are important and I'm not minimizing that. I'm not a leftover, uber-liberal, boundarieless hippie. *grin*
I’m just at a point where my theology is impacting my parenting in a different way than it used to, and leads me to focusing on looking to Christ's sacrifice rather than meting out punishment. . .
But hey, my experience with it wasn't that negative. Maybe there's a context -- an overly permissive liberal subculture -- where Ezzo's ideas were a helpful (over)correction.
Greg, I can see and accept what you are saying. And if Gary Ezzo had responded to the early correction from John MacArthur and the elders in the other churches he left under a cloud, I could see how his materials could have evolved and continued to be helpful. But, as they were formulated and are still taught—they are reactionary and have major Biblical flaws. (Have you seen Dr. Kent McClain’s review?)
I know several Ezzo families who flood their kids with love and show a lot more understanding towards their kids than Ezzo’s materials would account for. (Hmmm. . . Reformed families, btw. *grin*) I believe when Ezzo’s materials seem to “work” it’s because of the parents pouring out their love, being actively involved with their children, and God’s grace covering mistakes.
The general messages of Ezzo’s materials, however, do continue to set up an antagonistic parent/child attitude and, I believe from the de-Ezzoing families I know, lead to more problems than it’s worth.
Duchess:
I am genuinely honored -- really -- to have you respond so thoughtfully and graciously. And I am certain that there is not much difference between our thinking on this matter. I agree completely with almost everything you say, and the things we disagree about are fairly subtle.
Let me respond to just a couple of your responses, because I think that your excellent post really gets to the heart of several of the issues related to Ezzo. I'm sorry for how long this is, but I want to be clear.
1. Ezzo's origin and original context: Yes, I was there, living in the belly of the beast, when Ezzo developed his materials. Not at Grace Community, and I didn't know the Ezzo's, but I grew up in SoCal, returned there after college and grad school, and was a pastor there during the early 1990's, when our first child was born. And it was a subculture with all of these EXTREME views. During the same time Ezzo was developing his stuff, Hank Hannegraf (Christian Research Institute/Bible Answer Man radio program) was taking on the Word of Faith teachers in a huge public fight. On the child-rearing front we had, as I said, the Bradley Birth and La Leche League folks and others advocating extreme versions of their views. The folks that introduced us to Ezzo were part of a group that advocated homeschooling entirely from the Great Books program. Etc. Etc. You get the idea. Into this mix I think that Ezzo's materials presented a counterpoint, and -- I dare say -- in that context subtlety and nuance was lost. It was an advocacy environment: the only way that you got noticed was to really advocate/stake out a clearly defined position. And a lot of the folks who we knew who got into Ezzo had grown up in the multicultural mess of the 60's and 70's and were looking for something that was rooted in objective truth and moral clarity. Having been "educated" in the SoCal public school system during the 60's and 70's by burnt-out hippies when in 1993 I heard Gary Ezzo talk about "secular mysticism" I knew exactly what he was talking about.
2. If Gary Ezzo started out OK (at least within a context), what happened? Don't know for sure, but my experience leads me to suspicians. I don't know the Ezzos, but I've known and know A LOT of pastoral staff-types like him in SoCal churches. And while I didn't have first-hand contact with Grace Community at the time I took the video class, since then my company has redone all of the technical systems in Grace Community church and I've gotten some perspective on the staff and the place.
And with that background, here's what I suspect: Gary Ezzo is kind of a jackass. He wanted to develop his own source of income by making his group a for-profit company (I don't have a problem with that per se as I work in an industry with a bunch of former church staff guys that have gone on to form Christian film companies, publishing houses, technical consulting firms, etc.). But he was trying to launch his business while gettting paid by Grace, and using Grace's (and John MacArthur's) name and credibility to do so. When they tried to reign him in ("Hey, you wanna resign and go launch a biz we can't stop you, but you can't do it on our dime from the church office and represent all this as our views") he got worried about his future and at that point his natural paranoia and meglomania kicked in and he became more strident, defensive and combative. Called his followers to man the barricades because they were being persecuted, yada, yada, yada. Hey, that was the only way to keep book and tape sales going because at this point he wasn't going to have a salary and health insurance from Grace Community any more, and with John MacArthur black balling him he wasn't going to get another job at a church.
And one thing I've learned about Grace Commuinity and all the other mega-churches my company works with is that you DO NOT, under any circumstances FIGHT WITH THE SENIOR PASTOR!!! I think that John MacArthur and Grace were 100% correct in confronting Ezzo on the issues, but once they butted heads it spiraled down to Level 5 conflict pretty fast as these guys all dug in their heels and refused to budge and it became personal.
Now, don't you see, Ezzo HAS TO, is driven by market pressures, fuel the "distinctiveness" of his message, rally the devotion of his followers, fuel their exclusive loyalty. What choice does he have? Do you have any idea how unbelievably hard it is to make any money in the Christian publishing industry? This is his livelihood and retirement, and at this point there's NO WAY any local church is ever going to give him a job again. If he starts moderating his views and blends into the background as just another self-help, parenting advice author he's going to starve.
I don't know Ezzo, but I know SO MANY people that have left mega churches to try and use their reputation and resume to start a business (musicians, authors, technical consultants, missions consultants, film makers, etc) that I'm convinced that some of this is behind what drives the extremity of Ezzo's views. Combine that with a clearly paranoid, combative and arrogant personality and voila -- you get Ezzo's dynamic.
3. Punishment (of any sort) removes the sense of guilt from a child. I'm not talking theologically here. Obviously Christ removes our guilt and the Holy Spirit assures us of salvation.
I'm talking about emotional and relational tension. Let me give a couple of examples:
-You're playing ball in the backyard, and the ball goes through a neighbor's window. you run and hide and avoid the neighbor. Once your "crime" is discovered your dad marches you over to the neighbor to apologize, and you have to raise the money to pay for the neighbor's window. Now you can look you're neighbor in the eye again.
-You borrowed money from someone, and are short of fundage. You avoid the person because you are embarassed, ashamed and afraid. Once you finally pay it back, you feel restored and can look them in the eye again.
-A husband goes on a business trip. His buddies talk him into going to a strip club. When he comes home, he is moody, defensive and avoids conversation with his wife. The only way their relationship is going to be right again is for there to be some kind of process of confession, forgiveness and restoration and some meaningful actions through that process.
My point is that while in all of these cases the offended party can and should say to the offender that Chris forgives them, they all need to be forgiven by and restored with the person they have offended. Knowing that Christ died on the cross and forgives my sin of not paying back the loan to a friend does not restore my relationship with the friend until I either pay him back or he forgives the loan. And IF I have a moral conscience then even knowing that Christ removed my eternal guilt does not remove my sense of temporal guilt with the person I have wronged. Hey, how would it be if if The Inscrutable Discoshaman was unfaithful, but didn't feel guilty about it because God forgives him, even if The Duchess hasn't? I've done enough pastoral counseling -- and have hurt enough people in my own life -- to know that knowing the suffinciency of Christ for my eternal salvation does NOT alleviate all of our sense of guilt with those we have wronged.
Now when we spanked ("chastise" always seemed pretentious to me -- which is what did annoy me about Ezzo in the tapes: his sort of overly pretentious approach) our kids, we did so when they were 2 and 3 years old. At that age how does one communicate all of this? We ONLY spanked them when they WILLFULLY defied and rebelled: once when my son was 3 he tossed food back at his mom, threw a major screaming fit and said the meanest things his 3-year-old vocabulary had to offer -- all because she wouldn't take him out for fast food that day. He got spanked, we talked about respect and thankfulness for the food God had provided that day, he said he was sorry and the whole incident was over.
But he knew when we were finished with the process that his relationship with his mom was restored, and when that night he said he was still afraid Jesus was mad at him we shared the Good News and when he did his prayers he knew he was right with God and his parents. Case closed, he slept with a clean conscience and the next day was fresh and new.
Now maybe that's not how you would have handled the same incident, and I would NEVER think to suggest that the way we handled the incident was the right way for you. But it worked for us, and our kids at 14 and 9 have pretty well-developed senses of moral boundaries, confidence in Christ and respect for others. So far -- knock on wood -- it's worked for us.
4. Ezzo's followers are insane. Yeah, sure, probably if you say so, I don't know myself having not dealt with any of that for 10 years. Doesn't surprise me, I've known lots of devoted followers who become loony in their devotion -- remember the scene in Monty Python's Life of Brian where they all remove their shoes to show their solidarity with Brian when he loses his shoe? I just spent a week at the National Religious Broadcaster's convention, and I can tell you it's not just the Ezzo's who have followers that are a taco short of the combination plate.
Anyway, Duchess, your lightest touch commands obedience. Thanks for reading this novello and the graciousness of your response. But just because Ezzo has gone off the edge of the cracker and he's got a nutty crowd following him doesn't mean that EVERYTHING he has EVER SAID was without some merit. At least that was our personal experience.
Blessings on you and your family. May the Lord watch over you and keep you safe from harm.
Posted by: Greg at février 24, 2005 02:07 PMDitto.
Regarding the part where I'm involved, I'd say: Yeah, I do want my kids to have the palpable relief of knowing I really do love them. As the Bible says, what son is there whom his father does not discipline? I know this doesn't woodenly mean "spanking," but on the other hand I'm not convinced that it always means "firm talking-to" either. The Bible expects (as I know you and Disco know and do) for us to discipline our children because we love them. And it expects our children to recognize that the motive behind this is love.
So of course, my children's main forgiveness needs to come through Christ. But they also need to know that I love them and forgive them too. I'm called to be God's human hand of discipline in my family sometimes. We learn lessons about God through our parents.
Though none of this probably had anything to do with whatever Ezzo is saying. Whatever it is, there's a good chance he has it wrong.
Posted by: John R. at février 24, 2005 05:16 PMOne thing I want to know is why so many parents of all religious and ideological persuasions now feel that they have to latch on to a childrearing guru (like Ezzo) to help them raise their children. My husband and I read all the books, but we just ended up doing what our parents had done. Why don't people value the folk wisdom of their parents and grandparents?
Posted by: NJ Sue at février 26, 2005 02:53 AMgreg:>
this argument doesn't hold up. there are plenty of mainstream, christian parenting resources that say many of the meritorious things that ezzo has said. but without all of the crap that comes with ezzo's stuff. why recommend books, programs or practices that are 95% garbage and 5% beneficial when there are other resources out there?
greg:>
i'm having a hard time following why you are calling this is permissive parenting. one could take common, mainstream medical advice and point fingers your direction, telling you that your children are suffering because they were not breastfed (no bottle) until 12 months.
your statements overall are arrogant and flippant.
Posted by: at mars 4, 2005 07:47 PMGreg,
I don't see this issue as a running around naked or use Ezzo's advice; there is a lot of balance in-between.
I take issue with calling names like Nazi toward slightly crunchy folk who homebirth and nurse their babies.
Ezzo is extreme. As a Christian I cannot imagine supporting spanking because it removes guilt. Jesus removes guilt. Sometimes a bit of guilt is a good thing, internalizing morality is a good thing. I think citing extreme examples of permissiveness to create a straw man to beat up instead of looking dispassionately at the issues at hand isn't helpful.
Posted by: db at mars 4, 2005 10:37 PM