Concern #2

Mishandling of Scripture

Although there are over 1700 references referring to children in the Bible, only a few directly apply to parenting advice and application. In response to this limitation of Scripture dealing directly with parenting as a subject in the Bible, three questions need to be posed to the Ezzos concerning their use of Scripture.

Question #1

Is the Ezzos Scriptural approach for establishing their parenting theories biblically applicable or accurate?

Since the Ezzos claim their program is a biblical view of parenting, then great discernment must be applied in respect to the Scripture they use to establish their parenting principles. In my opinion some key Scriptures used in the program have been mishandled and stretched out of context in order to validate the Ezzo’s opinion of parenting. It seems as though the Ezzos predetermined their parenting principles and then carelessly aligned them with what they thought were related Scriptures. Some of the Scriptures are not as related as they seem, as the Creation and Cross accounts prove. These parenting inaccurate applications are commented on in three different sections of this analysis. For the sake of convenience, I will repeat them again in this section.

· Fact or Opinion (Page 14) An example the Ezzos incorrectly used Christ’s travail at the cross as a biblical basis for delaying a response to a baby’s cry. As the manual records, “Our heavenly Father’s non-intervention to His Son’s cry at that moment was the right response. . . it is used to demonstrate that God does not always respond to cry-cues immediately and without thought.” (Page 142, Prepared Parenting Manual.) The travail at the cross had nothing to do with delayed response to a child’s cry.

· Focus on the Family (Page 28) Speaking of Scripture, the Ezzos’ misuse of biblical texts is, in our view, a second cause for serious concern. They have, for example, repeatedly cited Matthew 27:46 –“…My God, my God, why have your forsaken me?”—in support of their teaching that mothers should refuse to attend crying infants who have already been fed, changed, and had their basic needs met. “Praise God,” writes Gary Ezzo on page 122 of Preparation for Parenting, “that the Father did not intervene when His son cried out on the cross.” We see no way to make such an application of this verse without completely disregarding its original context and purpose.

· Christianity Today (Page 32) A CHORUS OF CRITICS: Focus on the Family cites the Ezzos’”misuse of biblical texts” as a “cause for serious concern.” Focus points that the Ezzos repeatedly cite Matthew 27:46 (where Jesus cries out from the cross “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”) in support of their teaching that mothers should refuse to attend to crying infants who have already been fed, changed, and had their basic needs met. Focus says, “We see no way to make such an application of this verse without completely disregarding its original context and purpose.

· John MacArthur’s Church; Grace Community (Page 25) The best-known example of this is the GFI emphasis on infant feeding schedules, combined with Gift’s zealous opposition to demand feeding by nursing mothers. Portraying scheduled feeding as the true biblical practice, GFI strongly implies that demand feeding should be regarded as an unbiblical, humanistic—even sinful—approach to caring for infants. As elders, we see no biblical basis whatsoever for Gift’s dogmatism on this issue. While not opposing scheduled feeding, we would caution young mothers not to adopt any system of parenting that is so rigid that it requires them to quell the God-given maternal impulse. (cf. Isa. 66:10-13)

Other examples where matters of personal preference are presented as if they had biblical authority: GFI parents are taught that sling-type baby carriers are too child-centered and therefore incompatible with biblical parenting. GFI curriculum also teaches that mothers should not rock their babies to sleep; that they should not comfort or feed crying infants in the parents’ bed—and especially that moms should never sleep next to their babies. Portions of the material seem to place an undue stress on stifling the mother’s desire to comfort her children. For example, Matthew 27:46 is used to justify the teaching that mothers should refuse to attend to crying infants who have already been fed, changed, and had their basic needs met. Gary Ezzo writes, “Praise God that the Father did not intervene when His son cried out on the cross” (Preparation for Parenting, p.122).

We find throughout the GFI material a blurring of the line between that which is truly biblical, and simple matters of preference.

The following passages of Scripture that in my opinion are either taken out of context or misapplied. In all, there are over 70 references of Scripture that need to be looked at carefully, before a biblical mandate is applied.

· Out of context verses occurs when the Scripture reference is taken out of its setting to prove a parenting application. Thus, the validity of the parenting application cannot alone stand on this particular Scripture.

· Misapplication occurs when the parenting application used could be valid, but not in context with the passage of Scripture being used. The resolve is to use other Scriptures that directly deal with the context of the parenting principle being advocated. This disciplined method of analysis maintains the integrity of each passage of Scripture, and effects a more accurate application.

Scriptures in Question

Growing Kids God’s Way Manual

(Analyzed by John Pruitt, elder at Grace Community Church in Arizona)

1. Page 9 Ephesians 3:20 Possible Misapplication

2. Page 10 I Samuel 16:7 Possible Misapplication

3. Page 16 II Cor. 5:18-20 Possible Misapplication

4. Page 16 I Peter 1:16 Possible Misapplication

5. Page 16 Proverbs 17:28 Possible Misapplication

6. Page 18 I Cor. 13:11, Matt. 18:3 Possible Misapplication

7. Page 21-22 I Cor. 14:33 Possible Misapplication

8. Page 25 Proverbs 4:23 Possible Misapplication

9. Page 29 Phil. 3:13 Possible Misapplication

10. Page 36 Matt. 28:19-20 Possible Misapplication

11. Page 36 I Peter 3:2,16 Possible Misapplication

12. Page 37 Gal. 3:28; Col. 3:11; Possible Misapplication

James 2:1-10

13. Page 39 Proverbs 3:3-4 Possible Misapplication

14. Page 50 I. Cor. 3:16 Out of Context

15. Page 98 Jn. 17:17, Matt. 7:24-27 Out of Context

16. Page 103 Acts 23:1 Possible Misapplication

17. Page 104 Rom. 1:18-21, 2:14-15; Possible Misapplication

Ps. 119:11

18. Page 107 Ex. 20:14, Matt. 5:28 Possible Misapplication

19. Page 108 Psalm 119:11 Possible Misapplication

20. Page 109 2 Sam. 24:10 Possible Misapplication

21. Page 111 Col. 3:16 Possible Misapplication

(Sin is not issue in this verse)

22. Page 122 Phil. 2:3 Possible Misapplication

23. Page 124 Eph. 6:1-4 Possible Misapplication

24. Page 127 Rom. 1:29-30, 2:2 Possible Misapplication

25. Page 128 Gal. 3:24 Possible Misapplication

26. Page 131 Prov. 4:1-7, Jn 15:15 Possible Misapplication

27. Pg. 141-142* Matt. 27:26 Possible Misapplication

*PFP Manual

28. Page 161 Rom. 8:19-22 Possible Misapplication

29. Page 172 Heb. 12:11 Possible Misapplication

30. Page 185 Pro. 29:15b; 1:8-9; 22:15a Possible Misapplication

31. Page 186 1 Peter 1:16

33. Page 201 Deut. 8:5, II Sam. 7:14; Out of Context

Pro. 19:18; Heb. 12:67; Heb. 12:6-7; Rev. 3:19

34. Page 209 Prov. 22:6 Possible Misapplication

35. Page 267 Prov. 22:15 Possible Misapplication

36. Page 272 John 13:34-35 Out of Context

37. Page 274 Heb. 11:6 Out of Context

38. Page 277 Titus 3:8 Out of Context

39. Page 301 Pro. 20:11 Possible Misapplication

40. Page 311 Pro. 19:18 Possible Misinterpretation

Question #2

Is there evidence of Scriptural misapplication specifically explained n this evaluation?

In one of the parenting theories, the program determined that the husband and wife relationship hold the highest priority in the family. Regardless of age, children should not be allowed to disturb or alter the husband-wife relationship. If there is a center of attention in the family, it should not be with the children, but the husband and wife.

Quotes from the GKGW manual (pg. 63-64)

“. . . marriage is the priority relationship, all other relationships must be subject to it.”

“Often parents leave their first love, each other, and focus extensively on their children. Although this may be done in the name of good parenting, it is the first step to the break up of family relationship.”

“Parents who center their entire world around the nurture of children are child-centered.”

“Child-centered parenting attacks the husband-wife relationship by reducing its biblical significance.”

The Ezzos Creation Parenting Principle Misapplication

Whether you agree with the view of the husband and wife priority or not, the disturbing fact remains that the Creation account was their biblical basis for making such an assertion on parenting. The Ezzos attempt a lengthy explanation trying to make this work, first claiming that there was a concept of dependency inherent in all creation (pg. 63, GKGW.) According to them, what God created on the second day was dependent on the first day. Therefore, what was created on the first day had priority over the second day. Since the husband and wife were created first in the Garden, their relationship superseded that of the children. What they are trying to work toward in this biblical analysis is to abandon the practice of making the children the center of family nurturing. As you read pages 63-65 in GKGW, ask yourself, how did I get from the Creation account to the concept of not being child centered in my parenting?

The creation account doesn’t hide any secret messages, it simply records God’s creation of the world in Genesis 1-3. The messages is very clear: 1) God created Adam and Eve in His likeness, 2) God gave Adam and Eve a paradise to live in, 3) God allowed them to be tempted by Satan, 4) God rescued Adam and Eve when they sinned, and 5) God set in motion a plan of redemption for Adam and Eve and the world that followed. There is no teaching within the context about the priority of the husband-wife relationship that deters parents from being too child centered in their parenting. In fact there is no other passage of Scripture, including those that deal directly with parental advice, that even infers such a concept. That doesn’t mean the advice is not good or workable, but it is not biblical.

Dr. McClain’s Adam and Eve Parenting Principle Misapplication

In order to briefly illustrate my point further, I will take the same Creation account (Gen. 1-3) to establish my own parenting principle, which I will call the Adam and Eve Parenting Principle. I believe this principle (“tongue in cheek”) is biblically inspired, logical, and guide worthy. From the outset, I will tell you that I cannot use this as a biblical mandate, because it is a parenting principle I devised while reading the Word, not one that came directly from the Word. It is a biblical inspiration not a biblical principle.

Since the Trinity (God the Father, Son, & Spirit) are the perfect parents of us all, then Christian parents should treat their children in the same way that Adam and Eve (Mankind’s infant beginnings) were treated in the Garden. Adam and Eve were the center of the Trinity’s thoughts and efforts. An entire world was created around them, they were in God’s image, and there was nothing God didn’t do for them. He gave them a protective Garden to live in, and then granted them the freedom of choice. When they failed in that choice, God rescued them, and established a plan of redemption for them and all of mankind. As centuries passed, mankind was given progressively more knowledge and opportunities to trust God. The greatest parenting act of all time was when God sent His own son to save His beloved, but rebellious children. In the midst of all this Godly parenting, never once does the Trinity debate the importance of man. Man was the center of their attention, and so should children be at the center of each parent’s attention. That is what I refer to as the Adam and Eve Principle of Parenting, which I was biblically inspired by to use in my own parenting. Is not a biblical principle in Scripture; the context does not allow this.

Whether you agree with the GFI’s inspired teaching on the Creation account or mine, realize neither one interprets the context, therefore the application may or may not be biblically valid.

Question #3

Is there Fact vs. Opinion confusion in the GFI parenting program?

Another complication in the GFI parenting program is the intermixing of fact and opinion. In many cases the Ezzos have some good opinions on parenting and give reasonable advice. In the PFP Program, they list some specific suggestions on determining the reason behind a baby’s cry. Some of those suggestions are:

1) Listen for the type of cry (dirty diaper, trapped gas, illness)

2) Think about your baby’s routine. Is nap time over, has he/she been in the swing too long? (pg. 153, PFP.)

The confusion comes when the Ezzos make the mistaken effort to add biblical support to their parenting opinions. Biblical support that is often taken out of context. In response, many Christians will faithfully adopt these parenting opinions as biblical fact because they are purported to come from the inspired and inerrant Word of God (2 Tim. 3:16). Once again let me emphasize, the Ezzo’s parenting opinions may be helpful, but many cannot be used as applications from the Scriptures chosen.

An example the Ezzos incorrectly used was Christ’s travail at the cross as a biblical basis for delaying a response to a baby’s cry. As the manual records, “Our heavenly Father’s non-intervention to His Son’s cry at that moment was the right response. . . it is used to demonstrate that God does not always respond to cry-cues immediately and without thought.” (Page 142, Prepared Parenting Manual.) The travail at the cross had nothing to do with delayed response to a child’s cry.

Ezzos’ moral approach

In the final lectures of the series GKGW, I was relieved to hear Gary Ezzo finally claim that some of his parenting principles did not always have a biblical basis. Perhaps this was said to answer recent criticism, I do not know. But then he corrected himself by stating they did have a moral basis. As an example in lesson 8 on character development, The Child Interrupt Rule was not a biblical principle, but a moral mandate. You cannot have a moral mandate without a biblical foundation. The Bible amongst many things is the moral center and foundation, a document behind all moral decision making.