Michael Pearl’s Response To Critics

by Matthew Raley

Here is Michael Pearl’s response to those who have been warning about his teachings: laughter. You’d never know from his post that a girl had been killed. This is all about him, apparently.

By the way, what’s up with this “our children” thing? Does he think he has millions of children?

You can read a devastating take-down of Pearl’s statement to the Paradise Post at TulipGirl, who has been doing serious work on this issue.


10 thoughts on “Michael Pearl’s Response To Critics

Add yours

  1. Matthew,
    I am not a reader of his books (although I have read the one under dispute), nor an advocate of his views, but I know folks who are (including men like Doug Wilson, who seems to have some pretty stellar kids).

    It seems like a case of abusus non tollit usum. Why does he have to answer for someone getting his ideas wrong? That is a possibility.

    He seems like a nut to me, but nuts are not necessarily evil.

  2. Christopher, in my opinion the Pearls are being taken to task for what they *have* written, not for what they have not written.

  3. Christopher, for what it is worth since you mentioned Doug Wilson, this is what he wrote several years ago about the Pearls and TTUAC:

    ““The innate sinfulness of the child is denied, which leads the Pearls to sharply distinguish training from discipline. Training is what the innocent infants and toddlers get, and is identical to what puppies get when they don’t go on the newspapers. Discipline supposedly comes later when sin enters the picture. While this is not a book of theology, a Finney-like Pelagianism runs near the surface. And while there are some similarities between animal training and child-discipline, the distinctions between the two are not adequately maintained in this book. The result of this confusion is not only heretical, but also offensive to any parents who value the dignity of their children.””

  4. TG,
    Doug criticized the theological and philosophical underpinnings, but not the practical stuff. I am not defending anyone here, just clarifying.

    This is an issue regarding a subculture of a subculture. Many bitter people seem to have been left in its wake. Sorry to hear that.

  5. Christopher,

    I think your point is well-taken: I don’t think we ought to charge Pearl with Lydia Schatz’s death. He should not be liable for a parent twisting his teaching.

    I prefer to focus on what he is responsible for, about which I think we agree. His teaching is bad as stated, and an irresponsible encouragement to child abusers.

    Thanks, TulipGirl, for the Doug Wilson quote, and for all your work on this issue!

    Kathy, you’ve got a great blog! Thanks for coming by.

  6. Having read some of pearls material I find people blaming Pearl for this precious childs death confusing. I find this type of torture abuse nowhere in his writings. Sure,if a person had preconcieved opinions on spanking children they use this type of lunacy for fuel for their cause. Being involved with childrens ministry for years I’ve come to the steadfast opinion that being raised with a passive view of discipline is by far ruining our future generation.Having worked with 2 generations of children it would be intellectual suicide for me to state otherwise.

  7. Mr. Pope, I think there are many more options between passive parenting/intellectual suicide and Michael Pearl/doctrinal suicide. As you can see in my other posts, I am specifically blaming Pearl for what he can control, his teaching, not what he can’t.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: