To Train Up A Child, or: Spare the Rod? What Rod?

Larry and Carri Williams

Larry and Carri Williams

On October 29, 2013, Larry and Carri Williams of Sedro Woolley, Washington, were sentenced to 28 and 37 years in prison, respectively, for causing the death of their adopted daughter Hana Williams just after midnight on May 12, 2011. She was approximately 13 years old. She died of hypothermia and malnutrition after being systematically beaten, starved, and forced outside in the cold by her adoptive parents as punishment for her “rebelliousness.”

Hana Williams, 1997-2011

Hana Williams, 1997-2011

The Williamses had adopted Hana just three years earlier in 2008. The last year of her life was particularly brutal. In that year she lost 30 pounds due to her parents withholding food from her as punishment. Weighing only 78 pounds at the time of her death, her body was covered with welts and bruises from the beatings her parents had administered. They regularly punished her for such “offenses” as refusing to stand in a twelve inch circle that they had ordered her to stand in.

This was the third death linked to the child-raising practices advocated by Michael and Debi Pearl in their 1994 book To Train Up A Child.

All three of these families believed in the child-raising principles advocated in To Train Up A Child. And though they went far beyond what the Pearls advocate in the book, the deaths of their children were linked to beliefs and practices inculcated in them by the Pearls’ book.

In To Train Up A Child, the Pearls advocate “training” children to absolute obedience by systematically hitting them with instruments such as a plastic plumbing supply tube whenever they disobey commands—including contrived and arbitrary commands—given by their parents.

Michael Pearl runs a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization called No Greater Joy Ministries. To Train Up A Child is its best-known product. He preaches at a small fundamentalist church in the town of Pleasantville, Tennessee, where he and his wife Debi live.

He claims that the methods of corporal punishment (or “spanking,” as he prefers to call it) in To Train Up A Child are based on the Bible. But as we will see, his methods are actually based on the principles of behaviorism that were developed by atheist scientists such as Ivan Pavlov and B. F. Skinner.

Spare the rod and spoil the child?

First, let’s get one thing straight. The widely known phrase “spare the rod and spoil the child” does not come from the Bible. It comes from the satirical poem Hudibras, by Samuel Butler, which was first published in 1662.

The closest statement that does occur in the Bible is found in Proverbs 13:24, which reads, in the King James Version:

He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.

Did King Solomon, the traditional author of Proverbs, believe in literally beating children with a rod?

Probably. Though there are other interpretations.

Blogger Beth McDonald points out that Solomon’s father, David, was a shepherd. The true meaning of the rod, she says, is as an instrument of guidance and protection for the sheep. And I do believe there is merit to this idea. In the Bible, “the rod of correction” is used not only literally, but also metaphorically as a symbol of discipline, training, and guidance for the young and for the foolish.

However, here are several more verses about “the rod” from the book of Proverbs—which is the main Biblical source used by Christian fundamentalists to justify corporal punishment. These quotes are also from the King James Version, which is the overall favorite among fundamentalist Christians.

In the lips of him that hath understanding wisdom is found: but a rod is for the back of him that is void of understanding. (Proverbs 10:13)

Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him. (Proverbs 22:15)

Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell. (Proverbs 23:13–14)

A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod for the fool’s back. (Proverbs 26:3)

The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame. (Proverbs 29:15)

Based on these verses from Proverbs, it’s hard to argue that the book of Proverbs doesn’t advocate literal beatings with a rod, in addition to metaphorical meanings as found in various other passages from the Bible. Here are just two such metaphorical passages:

If they break my statutes, and keep not my commandments; Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes. (Psalm 89:31–32)

Is God literally going to beat wrongdoers with a rod and with stripes? No. The Psalm speaks metaphorically of disasters and hardships that will come to those who break God’s commandments. An example of this is found in Isaiah:

O Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand is mine indignation. I will send him against an hypocritical nation, and against the people of my wrath will I give him a charge, to take the spoil, and to take the prey, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets. (Isaiah 10:5–6)

The passage in which these verses occur is a prophecy against the Assyrian empire, which God had used as a “rod” to punish his wayward people of Israel by attacking them and taking the whole northern kingdom of Israel into captivity and exile.

And yes, in the beloved 23rd Psalm we read of the sheperd’s rod being used as a comfort:

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. (Psalm 23:4)

In short, the Bible uses “the rod” both literally and figuratively. And figuratively, it refers both to punishment and to guidance. It is likely that in Bible times, “the rod of correction” was literally used to beat the backs of both children and adults as a form of discipline and punishment—just as it still is in many parts of the world today.

Beating is not a Christian form of punishment

Michael and Debi Pearl on CNN

Michael and Debi Pearl on CNN

And yet, as the harshness of Old Testament times gave way to the faith, hope, and love that characterize the New Testament, the harsh and punitive use of “the rod” also began to give way to more humane treatment both of children and of malefactors.

Systems of corporal punishment such as those advocated by Michael and Debi Pearl can claim some basis in the practices common in Old Testament times. (Though as we will see, they are really not Biblical, but behavioristic.) However, they do so only by ignoring basic spiritual changes that Jesus Christ brought about in the New Testament.

For example, in To Train Up A Child, the Pearls say:

The unwritten common-law of retribution pervades all of man’s thinking. Regardless of the age, religion or lack thereof, education, or philosophy, all intuitively know that wrongdoing deserves and can expect punishment.

First of all, the law of retribution, or lex talionis, as it is referred to in Latin, is not unwritten. It was specifically commanded in at least three passages in the Old Testament that are the source of the common phrase, “An eye for an eye”:

If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. (Exodus 21:23–25)

Anyone who kills a human being shall be put to death. Anyone who kills an animal shall make restitution for it, life for life. Anyone who maims another shall suffer the same injury in return: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; the injury inflicted is the injury to be suffered. (Leviticus 24:17–20)

If the witness is a false witness, having testified falsely against another, then you shall do to the false witness just as the false witness had meant to do to the other. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. The rest shall hear and be afraid, and a crime such as this shall never again be committed among you. Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. (Deuteronomy 19:18–20)

Sounds like an open-and-shut case, right? The Bible clearly teaches the law of retaliation.

But wait! Listen to this passage from the New Testament:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you.” (Matthew 5:38–42)

The speaker is Jesus Christ. And in this passage, he specifically nullified the law of retaliation as taught in the Old Testament For the whole sequence in which Jesus lifts our understanding of the Law and the Prophets of the Old Testament to a higher level than they were originally practiced, see Matthew 5:17–48. For another example in which Jesus specifically overturns an Old Testament law, see Matthew 19:7–8, in which Jesus states that a particular Old Testament law was given “because you were so hard-hearted.”

The fact is, in Christianity, many of the laws given in the Old Testament are no longer binding. These include not only the ritual laws of sacrifice, but many of the laws of behavior and of punishment prescribed in the Old Testament.

A common error of fundamentalist Christian authors such as the Pearls is to ignore the fact that Jesus Christ raised religion to a higher level. Another common error of fundamentalists is to selectively apply certain Old Testament laws that they happen to agree with, while ignoring others that they don’t agree with.

If the Pearls and other “Christian” advocates of corporal punishment truly believed in following the laws laid down in the Bible, why do they routinely ignore this actual law given in the Old Testament for the treatment of unruly and rebellious children?

If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place. They shall say to the elders of his town, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. So you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel will hear, and be afraid. (Deuteronomy 21:18–21)

The Pearls’ methods may have been justifiable based on the Old Testament if the New Testament had never been written. But they are not justifiable based on Christianity as taught by Jesus Christ. Christianity made a decisive break with the harsh, retaliatory methods of discipline taught in the Old Testament. Christianity is a religion of faith, hope, and love (1 Corinthians 13:13), not a religion of harsh application of rigid laws as was the ancient Judaism of the Old Testament.

In short, corporal punishment as advocated by the Pearls in To Train Up A Child is not based on the Bible as seen from a Christian perspective.

To Train Up A Child is based on behaviorism, not the Bible

The Pearls believe that their system is based on the Bible.

However, a closer analysis shows that the fundamentals of their system are based, not on the Bible, but on the principles of behaviorism developed by scientists such as Ivan Pavlov and B. F. Skinner—who were not Christians, but atheists.

Pavlov is known for developing the practice of “classical conditioning,” in which actions on the part of the test subject (usually an animal) become associated with pleasure or pain administered by the trainer. Once an animal has been trained in this way, its human owners can cause it to act in a certain way simply by, for example, ringing a bell.

Skinner is famous for developing the “operant conditioning chamber,” popularly known as the Skinner Box. The purpose of this apparatus is to cause animals—usually lab rats or mice—to act in a certain way based on rewards given for correct behavior and punishments given for incorrect behavior.

Based on their theories and teachings, both Pavlov and Skinner are classed as “behaviorists.” They generally reject human free will as a concept, believing instead that our actions are based on the conditioning brought about by our previous experiences of pleasure or pain in response to our various actions.

What does this have to do with Michael and Debi Pearl’s book To Train Up A Child?

Well . . . the Bible never uses the word “condition” in the sense given to it by Pavlov and Skinner.

By contrast, To Train Up A Child uses the word “condition” over twenty times in that sense. For example, the Pearls write in reference to children:

Before they can DECIDE to do good we must CONDITION them to do good.

The Pearls say that it is similar to training soldiers in the military:

The maneuvers “Right flank, Left flank, Companeeey—Halt” have no value in war except as they condition the men to instant, unquestioning obedience.

(Incidentally, they’re wrong about this. Soldiers are not trained to obey without question. In fact, they are trained to disobey illegal orders.)

And in a favorite analogy, the Pearls advocate training children the same way horses, mules, and dogs are trained. For example, they write:

You must anticipate and train the horse for all potential occurrences. This is done in a controlled environment where situations are created to test and condition the horse’s responses. The horse is first conditioned by being taken through paces. As you hold the bridle and lead the horse, you say, “Whoa,” and then stop. Since you have a tight hold on the bridle, he must stop. After just a few times, the horse will stop to just the command.

Never mind that the best animal trainers rely far more on rewards for good behavior than on punishment for bad behavior. The point here is that the central idea of To Train Up A Child is based, not on the Bible, but on the 19th and 20th century conditioning techniques of behaviorism.

It doesn’t tell the full story to say that the Pearls use the word “condition” in a behavioristic sense over twenty times in their book. When they use the word “train,” as in the title of the book, it is usually being used as a synonym for “condition.” And the word “train” occurs over two hundred times in the book.

To Train Condition Up A Child

Sean Paddock, 2002-2006

Sean Paddock, 2002-2006

This concept of “training” is foreign to the concepts of human training and education found in the Bible. The Bible is based on humans being free moral agents who can choose for themselves between good and evil, and who will then experience the consequences of those actions.

The training of children by the Pearls’ behaviorism-based methods, on the other hand, bypasses human reason altogether, and uses purely physical response and stimuli to achieve the desired results. The Pearls write:

Training does not necessarily require that the trainee be capable of reason; even mice and rats can be trained to respond to stimuli. Careful training can make a dog perfectly obedient.

We’ll get to the concept of perfect and unquestioning obedience in a few minutes.

For now, let’s look at how the Pearls advocate “training” children. Their methods do not simply involve spanking children when they do wrong, as might be expected. Rather, the Pearls teach parents to set up artificial situations specifically to “train” (really, condition) their children to obey their parents instantly and without question. Here is an example from the book:

There is much satisfaction in training up a child. It is easy and challenging. When my children were able to crawl (in the case of one, roll) around the room, I set up training sessions.

Try it yourself. Place an appealing object where they can reach it, maybe in a “No-no” corner or on an apple juice table (That’s where the coffee table once sat). When they spy it and make a dive for it, in a calm voice say, “No, don’t touch it.” They will already be familiar with the “No,” so they will pause, look at you in wonder and then turn around and grab it. Switch their hand once and simultaneously say, “No.” Remember, you are not disciplining, you are training. One spat with a little switch is enough. They will again pull back their hand and consider the relationship between the object, their desire, the command and the little reinforcing pain. It may take several times, but if you are consistent, they will learn to consistently obey, even in your absence.

B. F. Skinner would be proud! The methods used for this “training” have nothing to do with punishing wrongdoing. They are simply an adaptation of the “Skinner Box,” used to artificially condition children to obey by punishing behavior arbitrarily deemed by the parent to be undesirable for the purposes of the training.

These behavior modification techniques have nothing to do with developing morals or conscience in children. They can just as easily be used to train children to do harmful and destructive things as to do helpful and constructive things.

In short, the system of “training,” or more accurately, conditioning children that the Pearls advocate in To Train Up A Child is based on amoral behavioristic principles that are completely foreign to the principles of freedom, personal responsibility, and the natural consequences of good and evil actions that are taught and exemplified in the Bible.

It is often (but not always) possible to condition children to engage in “correct” behavior as defined by their parents using the conditioning and behavior modification techniques prescribed by the Pearls. But having successfully done this, all that has been accomplished is to create children who are unthinkingly obedient to authority figures.

And that is not what the Bible teaches or exemplifies.

The sloppy Biblical scholarship of the Pearls

To Train Up A Child in an evidence bag

To Train Up A Child in an evidence bag

When I began reading To Train Up A Child, I was looking for the supposed Biblical basis of the principles taught in the book. And the very first substantive use of an example from the Bible showed that the Pearls play fast and loose with the Bible text. In fact, they’re just plain sloppy in their reading of the Bible.

Here’s what they write to justify the “training” sessions described above:

When God wanted to “train” his first two children not to touch, He did not place the forbidden object out of their reach. Instead, He placed the “tree of knowledge of good and evil” in the “midst of the garden (Gen. 3:3).” Being in the middle of the garden, they would pass it continually. God’s purpose was not to save the tree—rather, to train the couple.

For the full story of why this is a mistaken and sloppy reading of the Bible, see the article “Which Tree is in the Middle of Your Garden?” Here is the short version:

Genesis 3:2–3, which the Pearls refer to as saying that God placed the “forbidden object” in the middle of the garden, reads as follows:

And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat of it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’” (Genesis 3:2–3)

However, it was Eve, not God, who placed that tree in the middle of the garden. The actual command that God had given to Adam was:

And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, “You may freely eat of every tree in the garden. But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil you may not eat, for on the day that you eat of it, you will certainly die.” (Genesis 2:16–17)

God said nothing about the tree of knowledge of good and evil being in the middle of the garden. In fact, when God first planted the garden of Eden, God put the tree of life in the middle of the garden. The tree of knowledge of good and evil is just sort of tacked onto the end of the sentence, without specifying where it was planted:

And Jehovah God caused to grow from the ground every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. And the tree of life was in the middle of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. (Genesis 2:9)

Ironically, in placing the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the middle of the garden, the Pearls are falling prey to the same illusion that Eve fell for. The serpent focused Eve’s attention on the forbidden tree so much that instead of thinking of the tree of life as marking the center of the garden as God had made it, she began to think of the tree of knowledge of good and evil as marking the center of the garden.

The Pearls’ methods contradict God’s methods

But here’s the kicker: In using the example of the Garden of Eden and the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the Pearls underline the contradiction between their behavioristic teachings and the methods of God as described in Genesis chapters 2 and 3.

The next sentences in the Pearls’ book reveal that their practice is very different from what God did in Genesis:

Note the name of the tree was not just “knowledge of evil,” but, “knowledge of good and evil.” By exercising their wills not to eat, they would have learned the meaning of “good” as well as “evil.” The eating was a shortcut to the knowledge, but not a necessary path.

It just takes a few minutes to train a child not to touch a given object. Most children can be brought into complete and joyous subjection in just three days. Thereafter, if you continue to be faithful, the children will remain happy and obedient.

Did you notice it?

According to the Pearls, God made a simple, fatal mistake!

According to the Pearls, it would have taken God “just a few minutes,” or at most “three days,” to train Adam and Eve not to eat from or touch the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Then Adam and Eve, like “most children” would have remained happy and obedient.

Why didn’t God do that? Why wasn’t God as good a parent as Michael and Debi Pearl? If God had only followed their advice, the Fall of man would never have happened, and we humans would still be living happily and obediently in the Garden of Eden.

The fact is, the Bible story that the Pearls quote to support their behavioristic training regime teaches the opposite of what they advocate.

In the Bible, God does not use behavior modification techniques to train instant, unquestioning obedience into his children.

Instead, God puts the choice of good or evil in front of us, tells us about the positive outcomes of choosing the good and the negative outcomes of choosing the evil, and then leaves the choice up to us.

This is how God actually did parent Adam and Eve in Genesis 2 and 3. The result was not a blind and slavish obedience, but morally free human beings.

There are no arbitrary training sessions in the Bible. Rather, there is story after story of human beings making choices, good or bad, feeling the effects of those choices, and then either repenting and changing their ways, or not repenting and continuing to engage in prohibited behavior and defy God’s will.

This Biblical principle of free moral choice and the consequences of our choices is made clear in Deuteronomy 30:11–20:

See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, death and adversity. If you obey the commandments of the Lord your God that I am commanding you today, by loving the Lord your God, walking in his ways, and observing his commandments, decrees, and ordinances, then you shall live and become numerous, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land that you are entering to possess. But if your heart turns away and you do not hear, but are led astray to bow down to other gods and serve them, I declare to you today that you shall perish; you shall not live long in the land that you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess. I call heaven and earth to witness against you today that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Choose life so that you and your descendants may live, loving the Lord your God, obeying him, and holding fast to him; for that means life to you and length of days, so that you may live in the land that the Lord swore to give to your ancestors, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.

The results of choosing death are not some arbitrary consequence meted out by God for disobedience, like the spankings advocated by the Pearls for disobedience. Rather, they are the natural consequences of violating the laws of God and of nature. For more on this, see the article, “Curses or Consequences: Did God Really Curse Adam and Eve?

God does not treat us like horses, mules, and dogs whose behavior must be trained to conform to their masters’ desires. Rather, God treats us like free, responsible human beings who have the ability to make moral choices between good and evil—and if we are willing, to learn from the consequences of our choices.

The message here is not that we shouldn’t discipline our children. But discipline as exemplified in the Bible has little to do with the conditioning techniques developed by Pavlov and Skinner, and given a “Christian” veneer by the Pearls. Rather, it has to do with teaching our children right from wrong, providing our own example of good and right behavior, and letting children feel the consequences of wrong behavior.

Sometimes those consequences will be punishments of various kinds determined by the parents. But the farther children go in life, and the closer they come to adulthood, the more the consequences will simply be the natural results of foolish and destructive behavior. The best kind of “training” is the training of cause and effect that God has built right into the fabric of the universe and of human society.

Christianity goes beyond mere obedience

Lydia Schatz, 2002-2010

Lydia Schatz, 2002-2010

Aside from the surprising reliance on Skinnerian style behavior modification techniques in the Pearl’s book, what is most striking about To Train Up A Child is the heavy emphasis on absolute, instant, unquestioning obedience.

Yes, the Bible does talk about obeying the commandments of God. But what the Pearls advocate in their book goes far beyond anything presented in the Bible. The Bible focuses on teaching and training children so that they will know the difference between good and evil, and on exhorting toward the good. Only when people flagrantly violate the law does the Bible advocate punishments.

Here is an example of how the Bible speaks of training children:

You shall put these words of mine in your heart and soul, and you shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and fix them as an emblem on your forehead. Teach them to your children, talking about them when you are at home and when you are away, when you lie down and when you rise. Write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates, so that your days and the days of your children may be multiplied in the land that the Lord swore to your ancestors to give them, as long as the heavens are above the earth. (Deuteronomy 11:18–21)

There is no talk of unquestioning obedience here. Rather, it speaks of teaching God’s words to their children so that they may have long and prosperous lives.

The emphasis on instant, unquestioning obedience in To Train Up A Child is one of the most disturbing aspects of the book. And it is another area in which the Pearls depart from the principles of the Bible, and especially from the principles of Christianity.

It is true that in the Old Testament, obedience to the law is heavily emphasized. Those who obey the law are rewarded, and those who violate the law are punished. Keep in mind that these were not highly educated people, let alone highly spiritual ones. Most people in those days lived very earth-centered lives focused on acquiring and enjoying (or not) the basic, physical necessities of life. Humanity was at a low ebb spiritually in those days. Most people didn’t understand much beyond physical punishments and rewards.

However, as humankind developed morally and spiritually, we began to rise to higher levels. Jesus’ teachings represented a paradigm shift, lifting his followers to a new way of being spiritual that went beyond mere obedience to law.

It’s not that laws are no longer relevant. It’s that for Christians, following the law of God is not just a matter of obedience in order to avoid punishment and receive rewards. In Christianity, spirituality moves from mere obedience to faith and love. Yes, Christians will still experience pain and punishment if they flagrantly violate civil and spiritual laws. But in essence, Christianity involves living a spiritual life because we believe it is the right way to live and because we love God and the neighbor.

In other words, Jesus Christ neither requires nor desires the absolute, instant, and unquestioning obedience that the Pearls’ methods train into children when they are “successful.” (And despite the Pearls’ glowing promises, those methods often fail spectacularly, as Sean Paddock, Lydia Schatz, and Hana Williams testify from their graves.)

The higher we humans rise spiritually, the more we can leave behind the literal use of the rod in an attempt to beat our children into good behavior. Instead, we can increasingly understand “the rod of correction” as a metaphor for teaching and guiding our children away from self-centeredness and greed, and toward loving God and the neighbor as taught by Jesus Christ (Matthew 22:36–40).

To train up a child from a Christian perspective involves teaching our children well, providing them with our own personal example of love and faithfulness, correcting them with appropriate but merciful punishments when they persist in behavior that they know is wrong, and guiding them toward the life of faith, hope, and love that is the message of Jesus Christ and of Christianity.

For further refutation, from a secular perspective, of the Pearls’ methods by someone who was raised with those methods but repudiated them as an adult, see “To Train Up A Child,” by Libby Anne, on her blog “Love, Joy, Feminism.” The linked article offers links to the full text of To Train Up A Child, and to additional detailed commentary on the book.

For further refutation of the Pearls’ methods from a Christian perspective, visit the website “Why Not Train a Child?” It provides “A clearinghouse of information and Christian arguments against the teachings of Michael and Debi Pearl.”


Lee Woofenden is an ordained minister, writer, editor, translator, and teacher. He enjoys taking spiritual insights from the Bible and the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg and putting them into plain English as guides for everyday life.

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Current Events, The Bible Re-Viewed
34 comments on “To Train Up A Child, or: Spare the Rod? What Rod?
  1. mlbacallao says:

    Wow thank you for bringing these things to light.

  2. Hi Lee, I liked your article, highlighting why we don’t need cruel ‘punishments’ (or are they rather expressions of hatred towards life…?) like beating or stoning – normal people might do cruel things, small ones or large ones, when they lack self restraint, this can happen, but the horrible thing is when such actions are systematically advocated as just actions.

    There is just one thing in your aricle, however, that disturbs me a bit – that you seem to believe in a necessary development (I might be wrong) of mankind to higher spiritual levels – if this were true, how could there be any people in a ‘civilized’ country who believed the anti-humanistic dangerous ideas of the Pearls?

    The fact that Jesus saw the spiritual gains of forgiveness does not make his words ‘a step in the history of mankind’, does it? I encounter this idea often, and always think that it is an unlegitimate Hegelian (:all history is logical progress) projection on valuable spiritual ideas. I would think it to be Christian to think that human beings always, everywhere, have the possibility to choose love or hate, kindness or cruelty, not just ‘after Christ’, but in all ages.

    That would explain the fact that also in our times so many cruelties happen, and even are advocated by many people…

    • Lee says:

      Hi Angela,

      Thanks for your comments–thought-provoking as usual!

      I do think of humankind as in a process of overall development. And I do think there have been key points along the way where humans went through an upward (or sometimes downward) paradigm shift.

      However, that doesn’t necessarily mean that all people made the shift. Many are still living in an earlier paradigm spiritually and socially. So today we have a situation in which some people are more advanced and enlightened than others. (There, I’ve said it!)

      If this were not so, and no progress were possible for humankind, what would be the purpose of education, or, indeed, of philosophy?

      This is similar to our individual psychological development. Even when we have taken a step forward toward a higher level of mental and emotional functioning, there are still parts of us that remain in the previous stage(s), and occasionally come to the surface.

      Although I do believe there are higher and lower levels of human development, I also believe that people and cultures at all levels of development have the ability to make moral and spiritual choices within their own horizons. Some may be making those choices at a higher intellectual, emotional, and spiritual level, while others may be making them at a lower level. But all who have reasonably functional adult minds can choose between love or hate, kindness or cruelty, both before and after Christ, and whether Christian or of some other belief or non-belief.

      For one of my posts along these lines, see:
      Can Gang Members Go to Heaven? (Is Life Fair?)

      About Hegel, I have only a smattering of knowledge of his philosophy, so I’m not sure what exactly it is that you find objectionable about his views of human progress.

      Does this address the issue you are raising?

      • Thanks very much for your reply, Lee. I read the gang members article some time ago and liked it too.

        It is the philosophical background of certain ideas – if ideas have a philosophical background, perhaps only philosophers suppose they do to make their work seem important ;-)… – on which we differ.

        There is another point in your remark: do we have to have reasonably functional adult minds (Immanuel Kant, Enlightenment) to be able to choose love? What about the mentally handicapped, the babies, or those with obscured minds…? Actually I wrote a book (in Dutch, alas) to argue for a new ethics that does not rest solely on reason, in order to keep human beings in such conditions within the group of moral agents..

        On Hegel: he identified reason/logic and history and saw a necessary progress there (which might make horrible things like genocide, for instance, look like a ‘necessary step towards some goal). I am very distrustful towards believing in necessary progress for this reason. (Karl Popper wrote a thick book during WW II on this issue: ‘The Open Society and its enemies’)

        I do believe there to be some local progress on this point or that, but there is just as much regress… so, what would the point of education be, or philosophy? To try to prevent the minds and hearts of people from the darkness for which they might choose or fall prey too, perhaps?

        • Lee says:

          Thanks for the clarification about Hegel. I think I understand the issue.

          In response to that, I would say that if a particular group or culture considers its higher intellectual and technological achievements to be a license to oppress or wipe out other groups or cultures, that in itself demonstrates that it is not at a higher moral or spiritual level. It is still driven by low-level motives of dominance and greed rather than by higher motives of love for fellow human beings–still less love of God, who loves and values all people, high or low.

          About philosophy, I guess I have a little more optimistic view! I think it is possible not just to fight a rearguard battle against darkness, but to bring increasing light into the world.

          However, I do understand that seeing all the “regress” in the world of humans mistreating other humans, it is easy to become cynical about the perfectibility of humankind.

        • Lee says:

          Interesting thoughts on children and reason.

          I do agree that reason is not the highest human capacity or virtue. However, it is, I think, a gateway to the higher capacities of spiritual understanding and love. We tend to develop those higher capacities as conscious and chosen elements of our being only after our rational mind has developed sufficiently to distinguish between good and evil, and to choose the good for its own sake.

          Children and the mentally handicapped can, in a sense, choose love. However, it is generally in response to their environment and especially in response to their treatment by those responsible for them, rather than a personal choice independent of outside influences–as I do believe is possible for adults.

          This is why children are not held legally responsible for their actions, but the parents or guardians are held responsible instead. I believe that a similar principle applies spiritually: children, and teens who are still under the care and tutelage of parents or guardians, will, if they die, always end out in heaven because they have not yet reached an age and condition in which they could make their own free choice for evil over good.

          So in effect, children and the mentally handicapped are always on the positive side of the spiritual scale, and by extension of the moral scale because any “evil” in their actions is not truly their own, but is the influence of a vitiated environment or of negative influences from authority figures in their lives.

          However, this is a very tricky issue. There are a lot of gray areas–especially in the years of transition from childhood to self-responsible adulthood.

  3. And I liked it that you silently honoured the children who suffered so tragically by just putting their photos out there…

  4. Dan says:

    I wish you could convince some of those mega churches that advocate corporal punishment of children to rethink this issue.

    Your article makes so much sense! It is hard for me to believe that there are so many highly educated people that cannot see how wrong they are.

    • Lee says:

      Hi Dan,

      Thanks for stopping by, and for your thoughts. You and I both have that wish! Unfortunately, once we humans get an idea stuck in our heads, we tend to see and accept only what supports it, and to dismiss or not even see anything that does not support it.

      Still, I do hope that over time, harsh and non-Biblical practices such as those advocated by the Pearls will be seen for what they are, and abandoned by more and more people and institutions. This is indeed happening in the wider society. Corporal punishment is being condemned and abandoned in more and more countries, and by more and more organizations.

      However, conservative religious folk tend to be some of the last hold-outs on the social changes for the better that are happening under the influence of the greater spiritual light that is gradually dawning on our world. It’s ironic, isn’t it, when people who fly the banner of God’s love resist the changes that God is bringing about in human society!

  5. zooey111 says:

    Thank you for writing this! You have done an excellent job of showing how the Pearls have twisted the words of the Bible to suit their own ideas.

    • Lee says:

      Hi zooey111,

      Thanks for stopping by, and for your comment. I’m glad the article hit home for you! I hope it will help in the wider struggle to end violence against children.

  6. Thanks, Lee, for your elaborate answers. I would only once come back to the Hegel matter – the problem with his approach is that he thinks about humanity as a collective, while you (that is the difference, I see now) think always on the level of individual human beings and their choices. But then it is again, philosophically, difficult to uphold the notion of progress for humanity as such.

    I am sorry if I am annoying you with philosophy too much. It is just my way to try to understand things.

    And then – I do not see myself as a cynic! I tend to think that I have the kind of approach of a lawmaker: believe the best to be possible, but also reckon with the worst…

    • Lee says:

      Hi Angela,

      No worries. I enjoy these conversations! And even if my “thing” is spirituality, while yours is philosophy, the two are, I believe, simply different approaches to some of the same questions, and can be helpful in informing one another.

      Yes, I do think of humanity as a collection of individuals, each of whom can and does make individual choices. The aggregate of those choices, and the actions they lead to, creates the communities and societies in which we live.

      However, there is also a strong influence in the other direction: from the collective to the individual. For example, once one or a few people have learned something new, that knowledge can quickly be spread to the wider community and world–especially in today’s era of efficient worldwide communication.

      So, for example, once Einstein came up with the theory of relativity, it could be widely taught. Today the average high-schooler can learn the basic concept of relativity in one or two classes, and hundreds of thousands of college students have gained a solid grasp of a theory that, when it first came out, only a handful of people truly understood.

      And in the spiritual realm, once Swedenborg and others had provided a detailed description of the afterlife, that knowledge could be made widely available to all who are interested.

      The effect of this is that even knowledge that took humanity thousands of years to acquire can now be taught and learned by individuals in a few weeks, months, or years. And that makes possible higher levels of understanding and achievement–both material and spiritual–for large numbers of people, than was possible in earlier stages of human development.

      Having said that, I do believe there were earlier times–thousands of years ago–when humanity, though simpler outwardly and technologically than modern humans, had more direct access to spiritual knowledge and understanding than most do today. That period was the source of our ancient spiritual texts, which still surpass in depth of wisdom and insight much of what is written today. So there was a “Fall of Man” down to very low levels morally and spiritually before we began rising up again.

      Further, as I said before, even though I do believe that we humans are climbing up to higher levels of moral and spiritual development, there are still great masses of people who lag behind, and are stuck at earlier stages. So yes, as you say, we do have to both believe in the best and reckon with the worst.

      In other words, these are complex issues that can keep us thinking, learning, and growing for a long time!

  7. Suzanne says:

    Hello! I got chills and flashbacks while reading of the demise of these poor children .. My parents starved me and poisoned me forcing me to drink ipecac syrup when I was fed someplace! But aside from that …the pearls and those parents sicken me! What kind of big courage do u have to have to overpower a child! ?? It made me angry and sick to my stomach that they write a book about and made money off of their despicable beliefs!! Even worse that they had a following who would do that to their child!! I wonder how it connects that all 3 kids were adopted ??? Thank you though , it must get out!!

    • Lee says:

      Hi Suzanne,

      So sorry to hear about how you were treated as a child. Recovery from such treatment is a long and painful process!

      I do think it’s significant that all three of the documented cases of death at the hands of parents who followed the Pearls’ methods were adopted children–two of them black, one white. Adopted children have special problems and challenges due to their backgrounds, which adoptive parents must be sensitive to. Harsh behavioristic methods of discipline and conditioning such as the Pearls advocate fail badly in these situations. Parents who attempt to apply them find themselves in a no-win situation that they were set up for by the Pearls’ teachings. This leads directly to abuse and even death of the children, as we have seen.

      We can only hope that the evil and false nature of the Pearls’ teachings will become more and more widely known among the conservative Christians that they appeal to.

      • Suzanne says:

        Oh yes, you did say they were fundamentalist Christians, right? Also they all 3, took the teachings of those people (the Pearls) to a much more extreme than what the book teaches, right? Not that a step down is any better.. Because when you start telling your children to do arbitrary things, just to force them to obey … Then you aren’t raising children anymore but more like raising a sheep!! It’s ridiculous and kids are in no-win situations ..for ex: my father would smack the “stinger belt”(what us kids called the most painful if his belts) down on his hands and say “walk by me”… Well you walk by and you get hit, you don’t and you get hit…what’s your choice at 10yrs?? I stepped back & fell down the basement steps …they and my 2 older brothers just laughed. My father said “that was Gods doing, because you deserved it!”!!…. They left me there! Well the Go I know is a living God and he would never “do” that… & I understand “free will” & all.. But I still don’t get it, how he lets some be helped and not others?? Anyways thank you !!

        • Lee says:

          Hi again Suzanne,

          The pain and suffering that we humans inflict upon one another is truly sad–and in many ways demonic. You might be interested in my article:

          If God is Love, Why all the Pain and Suffering?

          Not that it answers all these tough questions, but it does offer a few thoughts that might be helpful.

          In addition to what I said there, I would also say that the reason that evil is evil is that it hurts people. Yes, God had to allow evil so that we humans could have free will, and be human. Unfortunately, this means that many innocent people will be hurt by evil people, and by people who have evil rooted in them even if they didn’t specifically choose it.

          Spiritually, though, I believe that God protects the innocent from evil that will have eternal consequences to their souls. That, however, is a whole article in itself! I do touch upon it in this one:

          Can Gang Members Go to Heaven? (Is Life Fair?)

          God’s ways are often mysterious to us here on earth. But I continue to believe that despite the evil that we humans inflict upon one another, God is a loving and merciful God, and will bring justice for all people, either here or hereafter.

        • Suzanne says:

          Yes…as a child I did not understand when I heard stories of how much God helped people; why wasn’t he helping me? I went to parochial schools and then even a catholic university! But it wasn’t until i got a personal relationship with our Lord, that I realized he was there with me! I’m not dead! He was holding me….he allowed my oldest brother to unlock the door when my mother had locked it so I couldn’t get out when she’d broken my left elbow at 13yrs! He was there just like the footprints poem states!!! Thank you for this thoughtful chat! I will look Fwd to reading more from you and those articles you touched upon. Also I’m glad you liked my article “Individuality In Pain”… I have a few more , too that you might enjoy if you look through even just the past few writings. I did an ASL performance if Katy Perry’s “Roar” for RSD/CRPS Awareness month (I have systemic Rsd/CRPS )! Also I got a resolution passed for Rsd/CRPS to make Nov. Be legally “awareness month”& once the US Govt. Acknowledges it…then people who have it, won’t have such a hard time being validated… I do have a few earlier articles re: my own h/abuse…”The Day The Music Died” is a good one.. Thank you so much!!! May I refer people to some if these articles when I do write about some of the abuse? Thank you

        • Lee says:

          Hi Suzanne,

          Once again, I’m very sorry to hear of the abuse you suffered as a child, and glad to know you are in the process of recovering. Kudos on the good work you’re doing so that others don’t have to suffer the way you did.

          About links, as long as they’re related to the post here that you’re commenting on, I don’t mind if you put an occasional link along with your comment about the post. However, if you start piling up lots of links, your comments may be filtered out.

          Of course, every time you comment on another WordPress blog such as this one, readers can go to your blog by clicking on your name at the top of your comments. If they find your comment interesting and helpful, they may go take a look at your blog.

        • Suzanne says:

          Oh no no No!!! I did not mean that, I would never do that to you as I wouldn’t want it done to me.. I just wanted to learn how to put those up in my own blog because I don’t know how. I mean for referencing purposes in my blog, I would never ever even think about doing that to you or any blogger! I’m really sorry !

        • Lee says:

          Hi Suzanne,

          I know some bloggers consider it impolite to put links in comments on other people’s blogs. Personally, I don’t have a problem with it as long as the articles linked are related and it is done respectfully in the course of a substantive comment.

          If you were asking whether you can link to my articles from your blog, of course that would be fine.

          To add links to your blog posts, you should see a button in the post editor that lets you do that. It looks vaguely like a paper clip.

        • Suzanne says:

          Oh no, my friend that’s not what I meant… I ve had people try to do that to me to get more readers I suppose? I don’t even think like that… I promise I would never do that …really … Me and my TBI from a car accident in 2002, already haven’t a clue what I meant now?? I just was so intrigued by your stories and know a lot about it first hand, unfortunately… I don’t want to take or get or even borrow readers and I’d never try to get them from someone elses blog , I promise! But I just didn’t understand something… I think? I’m sorry I totally just don’t remember … Forgive me..I’m sorry

        • Lee says:

          Well, as they say, “No harm, no foul.” 🙂 If you do think of what you wanted to say or ask, please let me know. Thanks!

        • Suzanne says:

          Thank you for your kindness and understanding!

  8. Y. Prior says:

    I believe the rod meant guidance. nice post.

    • Lee says:

      Hi Y. Prior,

      Thanks for stopping by and adding your $0.02. I’m just catching up on responses to a few comments I apparently missed earlier.

  9. Diana says:

    People who think the Bible demands over-controlling, punitive and violent parenting usually make their case from Proverbs. They don’t usually quote much from Matthew 18 and don’t have much idea of how to read the Old Testament in the light of the New. I have encountered astonishing anger and hostility (but no direct answers) when I ask such people what they think I Timothy 3 has to say about child-rearing.

    I have only once read an exposition of I Timothy 3:3, and that was from a writer who used it to prove that the Bible forbids wife-beating. I agree that this text can be applied this way. But that same writer went on to describe in nasty detail how he loved his children enough to beat them. He didn’t make any connection between v3 and vv 4-5. Aside from that one confused writer, I have never read a book or heard a church sermon on what I Timothy 3:3-5 says about the corporal punishment of children.

    I brought it up with my own pastor. He thanked me very much for drawing the verse to his attention. He was due to interview some ordination candidates that week, and I Timothy 3 was the key text on which he was going to examine them for suitability. As a result of my tip-off, he said, he would be checking that the candidates all understood that this passage prohibits child-hitting. But he frankly admitted that this application had never occurred to him before I mentioned it. He is a superb Bible teacher and he has never struck his own children, who have both grown into wonderful adults. He simply hadn’t noticed that particular verse.

    What’s going on here? Why are the New Testament passages that say most about family life the ones that are least discussed? I know that good Bible exposition will not change the behaviour of people who are determined to vaunt themselves and ignore God. But weak, confused people who mean well but are fooled by false prophets might just be helped by a pro-active and readily available exposition of what the Bible really says.

    • Lee says:

      Hi Diana,

      Good thoughts. Thanks!

      We tend to get out of the Bible what they bring to it. If we bring an open, gentle heart and a desire to be led by God, we receive the guidance we are looking for, and it develops in us the qualities described in 1 Timothy 3 and elsewhere. If we bring a punitive and domineering heart, we search the Bible for passages that can be used to support us in our violent nature, and twist or ignore the rest.

      I have been amazed at how so many so-called “Christians” can tenaciously cling to beliefs and practices that are diametrically opposed to the Lord’s own teaching in the Gospels, and yet insist that these false beliefs are the true essentials of Christianity.

      One of the most common hallmarks of such views is that those who hold to them selectively cull verses from the Old Testament supporting their position on a particular issue, while insisting that other Old Testament laws have been superseded by the work of Christ.

  10. ennis says:

    This methodology is NOT designed to teach children / people to follow God.

    It is not designed to achieve absolute compliance – even if it can, under the right circumstances, cause those so abused to obey all commands give with no regard to personal consequences.

    Ultimately, what it is designed to teach is that the abuser IS ***GOD***. – and that the sole purpose of the one abused is to provide the abuser with worship / narcissistic supply, as is appropriate for a narcissistic extension.

    Finally, this sort of abuse is NOT limited to ‘religious’ settings. It can – and does – happen apart from any mention of religion.

    Formal methods of this type of abuse are applied to ‘developmentally-disabled children’ by so-called therapists’. The most common catchphrase used is “applied behavioral analysis’ – which is indeed Skinnerian.

    Informal methods, however, are both cheaper and far more common. In families, they are used by personality-disordered parents to break children and compel absolute obedience – to obey ” orders” because they are orders – and obey the one giving them because they are that particular person.

    In short, one obeys that perons – or, potentially, any other person – without regard to personal consequences: in spite of pain, hardship, suffering, torment, health problems.

    As if they are GOD.

    Like I have been trained to do.

    • Lee says:

      Hi ennis,

      Thanks for your thoughts. I’m sorry you had to go through that. I hope you are on the way to recovery. Knowing and understanding what has taken place is the first step.

  11. hex!tect says:

    strange the comment on Hegel, ( yoda speaking haha ) anyway i was just thinking of the complete opposite polemic of hegel on the exact same passage and flabbergasted that immediately afterwords i encountered his name in the comments ! hegels polemic being the misconception that former peoples or cultures were any less advanced, which i think is constantly unrecognized and profoundly true; as historical research constantly reveals that former societies were perhaps in no way less sophisticated . The writing of the bible, the scriptures, alone is one glaring example of that fact – or technologically speaking the profound beauty or underlying function of the pyramids has never been understood or surpassed..

    • Lee says:

      Hi hex!tect,

      Thanks for stopping by, and for your comment.

      Clearly, our scientific and technological knowledge today is far beyond what existed in the past on this earth, including that of the ancient Egyptians.

      What the ancients did have, I believe, was a higher level of spiritual understanding than we do today. Hence, as you say, the scriptures and other ancient spiritual texts, which continue to surpass most of what is written today.

      I think of human spiritual history as something like a reverse bell curve, in which we started out at a very high level, represented metaphorically by the first chapter and a half of Genesis, then fell from that spiritual height to almost complete spiritual darkness and ignorance (represented metaphorically by the Fall and the decline of humanity throughout the Old Testament). That darkness reigned by the time Christ came, and halted humanity’s downward moral and spiritual plunge. Since then we have been making the long, slow, and painful climb back up to spiritual knowledge and enlightenment.

      However, it is a complex, patchy, and varying process, advancing and retreating in different parts of the world, sometimes going backwards before going forwards again, and so on.

What do you think?

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s

Lee & Annette Woofenden

Lee & Annette Woofenden

Featured Book

God and Creation

By Lee Woofenden

(Click the cover image or title link to review or purchase. This website receives commissions from purchases made via its links to Amazon.)

Join 1,232 other subscribers
Earlier Posts
Blog Stats
  • 3,679,339 hits
%d bloggers like this: