The review e-book that Dave and I started working on last year is finally live. Please click here to visit the page where the free PDF download is hosted.
Here’s a look at the table of contents:
I. Preliminary Considerations
- Scope of the Question and Intended Audience
- Addressing Blurred Lines Between Personal and Ministry Life
- Defining Community and Its Role
II. Addressing Parenting Techniques
- Why We Don’t Include Parenting Techniques
- Good Parents, Bad Methods and Other Contentions
- The Best-Laid Plans
III. Examining the Doctrine of No Greater Joy Ministries
- The Doctrine of Man
- Concerns
- Doctrine
- Further Concerns
- Conclusion
IV. Concerns on the Person of Christ
- On Agreement and Disagreement in Wording
- Christ’s Person
- What Does This Wording Mean?
- Non-Righteous Christ?
- The Obedient Life of Christ
V. Teachings on the Person of Christ
- Sustaining Relationship
- Faithfulness and the Question of Merit
- Adamic Righteousness and Unrighteousness
VI. Doctrine of Christ, Concluded
- Concerns
- Doctrine
- Conclusion
VII. Concerns on the Atonement of Christ
- Ears to Hear: What I Heard
- Obtained Human Righteousness
- Obtained Human Righteousness Imputed?
- The Chastisement of Our Peace
- Conclusion
VIII. Doctrine of the Atonement of Jesus Christ
- The Life is In the Blood
- Something that God Didn’t Know?
IX. Sin and Salvation
- The Sinful Nature
- Concerns on Salvation
- Doctrine of Salvation
- Conclusion
X. Examining Sanctification
- Concerns on The Nature of Sanctification
- Doctrine of Sanctification
- All Ye Who Are Weary
- Conclusion
XI. To Discern Good and Evil
- Does Criticism of Child Discipline Methods Jeopardize Parents’ Legal Rights?
- Exercising Discernment
- Sample Case: “Spanking is Only a Part of Training”
- Conclusion
APPENDIX: What is the Schatz Case? A Summary of Health and Wellness Implications
By Cynthia M. Kunsman, RN, BSN, MMin , ND
Pingback: TulipGirl » Blog Archive » Yes, Theology Does Matter in Parenting
As soon as I read in your book that the Pearls are KJV Only, I understood. No informed sane person can be KJV Only–it’s fine to prefer the KJV, but no KJV Only person I’ve met (and I’ve taught Bible at a KJV Only school) can think rationally. KJV Onlyism is cultic and there’s no point in dialogue with adherents because they don’t care about facts so there is no common ground for debate. While there is a spectrum of fanaticism, they all share a brimming confidence that they are right, everyone else is wrong, and nothing can change that–it’s should be obvious how that mindset affects everything they believe, from child-rearing to anything else. When you show somebody that 1 plus 1 equals 2 and they insist that it equals 11, meaningful dialogue is impossible.
[Edited to add:]
I’m a bit obsessive about balanced statements, so I want to point out that we have several friends who are KJV-only, whom we enjoy and respect, and that we’ve used KJV verses and links to online Scripture in the e-book.
[/edit (9:03 pm)]
It is an American-born heresy that seems to have major deleterious effects on all areas of hermeneutics and critical thinking. We see this problem on the conference circuit. Unfortunately, we hear recurrently that many God-seeking conservative families are fed KJV-only in a mix along with other doctrines, and (thank you postmodernist entertainment culture) can’t necessarily find teaching that even uses the Bible outside of one extreme or another. Balanced churches are rare, rare, rare.
But KJVolatry goes nicely hand in hand with those who wish to believe the USA is “God’s chosen nation,” since the country inconveniently isn’t educated to speak and read Hebrew or Greek.
I don’t think Pearl is of that camp–he seems to have his own eschatological thing going. Nonetheless, he’s picked up a lot of odd twists and managed to synthesize them into one big ball of “yikes.” We really did not expect to find things as bad as we did with NGJ. Disappointing and disturbing.
I have had KJV Only friends and employers, but my statement stands. If your friends are sane (which I assume), they are not informed, or they would not hold a position that denies reality and is impossible to defend by anyone who understands basic logic. I am not speaking of KJV preference or usage, but of those who actually hold the so-called Authorized Version above the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts and seem to think Paul spoke in 1769 English (although they wrongly think their version is from 1611). It’s all quite sad and I’ve seen the results of that inability to reason far too close up.
> We really did not expect to find things as bad as we did with NGJ
Once you find out someone is KJV Only, nothing can be a surprise after that, because they are not bound by facts or logic.
“my statement stands. If your friends are sane (which I assume), they are not informed”
And you’re welcome to state your mind. But, Ratbert m’dear fellow, have you ever noticed how calling people insane or uninformed never really makes the world a better place? It only makes people less willing to talk to each other from opposite sides of their various fences.
For the truly insane and the belligerently uninformed, as you well know, there is no mercy around here, and I’m happy to call on you and Quixote to make this corner of the world safe for enquiry…but it won’t feel safe for enquiry to those who wish to inform themselves if their first impression is that someone’s going to crack them over the head for a difference of opinion or belief.
On that note, I see the OP has acquired its first thumbs-down. Excellent–that means it’s been traveling.
Lord willing it finds its way to those who are looking for it.
Sorry. My humble apologies. I get a little insane myself on that topic because I’ve seen so much abuse, hypocrisy and damage done in the name of the good old KJV. I’ll try to remember that there are some nice people who are KJV Only even though I don’t know any personally. That way we can attempt to educate them with gentleness and respect and they will either change or show their true colors shining through. I sometimes forget this is a very public forum, not just a circle of friends chatting. I buffeted my body since you can’t reach this far.
“I sometimes forget this is a very public forum, not just a circle of friends chatting.”
On topics like this, it becomes very public. The rest of the time, it’s friends chatting. I have to adjust every time I post on a more widespread topic.
“I buffeted my body since you can’t reach this far.”
I’ll have Joanna double-check your work on that and follow up as necessary, you minion.
Just dropped a few dollars and downloaded your eBook. Thought it will take time to fully digest but I can tell this is one I will want to several parents to. Thanks for a great effort.
On a technical note”
1) I put this on my NOOKcolor. The formatting and look are great in that format.
2) This is only offered from much research in social media marketing. You may want to consider making link to this page have the name of the book rather than “click here.” Web spiders are not nearly so friendly to generic links as to links that match the title or content. Just a thought.
Keep up the work God has called you to!
BTW: If Mike Duran asks why I also posted this on his site
“Just dropped a few dollars and downloaded your eBook.”
Thank you so much.
” I put this on my NOOKcolor. The formatting and look are great in that format.”
Kewl! I was dreading my technical ineptness interfering with the e-reading experience.
“You may want to consider making link to this page have the name of the book rather than “click here.””
Ah! Thanks for the tip. I don’t think in “spider” or SEO. It always amazes me that anyone finds this blog at all.
Pingback: Review of No Greater Joy Child-Training Doctrine | Why Not Train A Child?
Pingback: Parenting in the Name of God | Created to be His
Randy, this one’s for you:
http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_unlearned_men.htm
Found through SharperIron.org.
Good link. He summed it up well: “But I have no doubt that some will blissfully continue in their ignorance, willfully ignorant of the truth, not seeing because they do not want to see.”
That Georgie Porgie “Jezebel” mudslinger that Dave, you and Quixote ran off last fall was a Ruckmanite.
Pingback: comprehensive review of Michael and Debi Pearl’s writings and more links
Pingback: TulipGirl » Blog Archive » Hana Grace Williams, 1997 – 2011
*sigh* I wish more people would read this. You’ve probably heard of another death related to the Pearls and their false teachings. . . Hana Grace Williams. . .
http://www.scribd.com/doc/66907264/Probable-Cause
I’ve been away from social media, so I hadn’t heard. Oh. My. Word. Unbelievable abuse. But so consistent with the adversarial dynamic that Pearl cultivates in parents toward their children. And so consistent with his heretical theology of the evil of the flesh.
I have been looking through your site as I have been around various places defending Mike Pearl and his book (long story) and I cam across this conversation. I have also looked (skimmed might be more appropriate) through your book on parenting (which may have been better titled “why Mike Pearls theology is wrong”) and as someone who is very familiar with all of his teachings, I can say that you got most of your analysis completely wrong. No doubt it was unintentional. That can happen when you have arrived at your conclusion before you began. For starters, he has never said the flesh was evil. It just isn’t true. What he has said, is that rather than the extra biblical concept of some “sin nature” being our problem, it is actually this body of flesh. Some biblical examples of this are Pauls crying out “who shall deliver me from the “body of this death”. He did not cry out for delivery from a sin nature. It is our body that will be glorified, it is our flesh and blood that cannot inherit the kingdom. The greek word is consistent “sarx”.
Anyhow, the simple application of all this can come down to the garden. Adam and eve were created without any sin. They were without fault, had no knowledge of good and evil. Calvinists tell us we sin because we have a “sin nature” but what about Adam? Adam and Eve sinned and di it before the fall. The reason is simple, and is laid out in the Scripture “eve Saw that it was good to the EYE and DESIRED it.” We don’t have to write a 1,000 page theological thesis on this as it is all laid out right there. Adam and Eve were created with the same fleshly desires that we have today. They got tired, got hungry and had pleasure. They recognized beauty etc. none of these things are sinful and the flesh in and by itself is not sinful. The sin is when we follow after those desires contrary to God’s instruction. Eve chose to obey the pleasantness of her eye and her desire to be wise rather than obey God. Sure, the devil was thee coaxing her, but the sin was hers nonetheless.
Today we have the same body plus the consequences of the fall. We have separation from God, the world, the flesh and the devil to go along with the knowledge of good and evil. Mike Pearl has never said that the body was sinful and you will not find it in any of his writings. You also misunderstand the use of the word “character” in relation to Adam, but I will save that for another time as I don’t want to writer forever if you aren’t going to read this. Have a good day.
Jason,
Thanks for maintaining a good tone–this is a contentious topic.
A couple of corrections that will come clear if you find time to do more than skim the e-book:
“No doubt it was unintentional. That can happen when you have arrived at your conclusion before you began.”
We had no conclusion before we began. We had barely heard of Mike Pearl (and that single instance a favorable mention) before the Schatz case, hadn’t read TTUAC. As Bible-believers we hold that even if we might not personally be attracted to a person’s tone, that’s no arbiter of doctrine. If they are biblical, then we have no problem with them.
“he has never said the flesh was evil.”
This is a semantic straw man. You’ll find that we agree, Pearl teaches the flesh is neutral, but in our view this is not in his favor theologically–quite the opposite. His teaching is summed in the idea that evil/sin arises from out-of-control flesh, as you’ve pointed out. We disagree with this.
“You also misunderstand the use of the word “character” in relation to Adam”
Ah. The slippery word “character.” I expect we could dance around that one for awhile…
Look, as long as the discussion picks apart surface word choices like “evil” and “character” instead of addressing the underlying theological structures and assumptions, it’s bound to fail, so I appreciate you not bothering to go there.
“I don’t want to write forever if you aren’t going to read this. Have a good day.”
We do indeed read every comment, and only the obscene or harassing are subject to moderator intervention. Thanks very much for stopping by to present your viewpoint, and doing such a fine job of it. This is a very good summary of Pearl’s teachings and approach to arguing NGJ doctrine.
Respectfully, let’s agree to disagree. We simply do not hold the same theology. Go in peace.
While I agree we do not hold the same theology, that is not at all the point of my response, nor why I took the time to do so. I saw a man who’s doctrine was being misunderstood and therefore counted as “heretical”.
You said, “And so consistent with his heretical theology of the evil of the flesh.” in your post above. I pointed out that he did not say that and it seems you have corrected your position when you replied that you said he calls the flesh neutral. That is quite different (and a more accurate representation) of Mike Pearl’s teachings.
You devoted an entire book to correcting a theology that I don’t feel you took the time to fully understand, as noted by your comments about the flesh being evil and Mikes teaching on that subject being “heretical”. Perhaps some time spent with someone a bit more familiar with the man and his teaching would have been warranted before writing an entire book that will now lead more people to the erroneous conclusion that Mike Pearls teaches heresy. Perhaps you did take the time and I am wrong, but maybe getting some insight from someone who is more familiar with the theology from the book would have resulted in a more well rounded look at the teaching. Again, I don’t intend on attacking you or claiming you were malicious.
I draw your attention to your conclusion on his teaching of the atonement on pg 40 : “the man has a different Jesus than I do” and then you quote 2 Cor 11:3-4 as though he teaches “another gospel”. That is quite a claim!! You are saying the man is out side the faith, and it is not something that is easily dismissed and I can’t help but feel you both could use some insight. Again, it seems like some additional research could have prevented you from making such an absolute statement on the standing of the man and his teachings.It is my view in giving you both the benefit of the doubt that you were not malicious but rather do not understand what he is teaching. In that same conclusion that you say “in reference to Christ, Pearl seems to greatly prefer “righteous”" to sinless. You then seem to make great leaps concerning his theology and teaching on soteriology based on that fact, but it is the Holy Spirit through the Word of God that teaches we are imputed with Christ’s righteousness not simply His sinlessness. (rom 4:3, 4, 11, 22-24; Jas 2:23) I can’t quite fathom why you called it “mind-boggling”.
You also “corrected” the teaching regarding what we are imputed with (p 44) disputing what you felt was mikes teaching that we are imputed with the “learned, obtained righteousness that Christ obtained on earth”. What I don’t understand is that Christ’s obedience, fulfilling the law, overcoming where Adam fell, was central to the gospel. It seems you dismiss this aspect of Christ’s work on our behalf while attacking what you saw as an error. The Scriptures say Christ “increased in wisdom and stature and in favour with God and man.” Jesus is God, correct? Is God wise? Why did Jesus grow in wisdom and favor with God? We might never fully understand it, but it is right there in the Scripture nonetheless. We are given Christs life upon salvation, and that life includes His earlthy life, as well as His eternal life as we are “seated with Him in the heavenly places”. But we cannot dismiss the aspects of His earthly life that He lived on our behalf. It is central to the gospel and was a necessary aspect of our redemption.
I feel the man has been misrepresented in a bad way on a number of points in your e-book. And it is not the sort of “well, we see his point but we disagree on this and that minor nuance, etc”. Rather it is “the man has another Jesus!” I can assure you that you are misunderstanding and therefore misrepresenting the man. That is all. Thank you for allowing me to respond and not censor my response. It is more than can be said of some others.
“You devoted an entire book to correcting a theology that I don’t feel you took the time to fully understand”
I’m sorry that a full year of in-depth study and analysis isn’t enough for you, Jason. See, it’s assumptions like that, that just make me tired and discouraged. And this is why the theological disagreement is in fact the point. It doesn’t matter how much time we spent, it’s not going to be enough for you because we’re not going to agree on this.
“That is quite different (and a more accurate representation) of Mike Pearl’s teachings.”
Actually, it’s not different at all, it’s a different wording of the same underlying heresy (and yes, I do stand by that word–it’s not a name-calling term or a personal reflection, it’s a category of doctrine). But let’s not bother arguing over it. That would be the ruin of a respectful conversation.
“Again, I don’t intend on attacking you or claiming you were malicious.”
Nor I, you. My intention’s only to point out that I’m not the one jumping to conclusions or failing to read the other party carefully here. (When I’ve stated that you accurately represent Pearl’s teachings as I’ve read them, why do you insist that I must surely misunderstand them? Do you misunderstand them?)
I’d ask that you take the time to read carefully before jumping to any more conclusions, as we’ve stated these things clearly in the introductory materials.
“You are saying the man is out side the faith, and it is not something that is easily dismissed and I can’t help but feel you both could use some insight.”
Unfortunately, I feel the same about your need for some insight, but that’s what happens in a theological disagreement. I stand by those statements, as does the entire theological review team for the book. Mike Pearl subscribes to and promotes the same ancient heresy of Gnosticism that the entire book of 1 John was written to correct.
Sorry. That’s where it’s at. It doesn’t mean we need to start a flame war, it just means there’s a deep and very real divide here.
We don’t hold that everyone who agrees with Pearl must be an unbeliever, nor do we rule out the possibility that Pearl may be truly saved and deeply misguided. That’s absolutely not our judgment to make. But yes, it is our finding that Mike Pearl teaches a different Jesus than the Jesus of historic Bible-believing Christianity.
“I can assure you that you are misunderstanding and therefore misrepresenting the man.”
I wish the assurance of a random stranger on the internet were enough to convince me of my own mental incapacity, and that of a dozen other intelligent and educated souls, and thus so easily resolve such deep theological differences. Please try to see your words from my position, here.
Other than a too-hasty devaluation of the consideration, study, time and workload put we and many others put into this–we agonized over it, because you’re right, the conclusions we arrived at are not light ones–you’ve been a very fair commenter, and I wish you well also, Jason.
This will be my last reply to you, because I genuinely don’t want to get into an argument with you. As I said previously, we’ll have to agree to disagree. Blessings on you.
Dear Cat, & Dave as well:
Accept my apologies for unwittingly siccing :-0 Jason on you.
I really hoped that he would read & learn from your most thoughtful analysis of the Pearls.
Instead……He & I have been duelling here, there & everywhere for awhile now. Welcome to my world…..;-)
Pingback: TulipGirl » Blog Archive » On the Pearls and Parenting, Once Again
While I understand you do not desire to debate theology with me, which I can understand, I posted this on Linda Herman’s blog and wanted to at least share it with you. You don’t even have to post it, and I will not think you are censoring (although reading your commenting rules, I am sure you will post it). I draw particular attention to the last paragraph or two. I just wanted to be fair and at least make you aware.
[MOD NOTE: Truncated due to thread swamping. Original comment here. We ask that commenters use the generally accepted practice of quoting an excerpt and/or linking to lengthy information already posted elsewhere rather than cross-posting in entirety.]
Jason, Jason, Jason..What can I say??
*You* are the one who doesnae get it, yean. No matter where I meet you on the ‘net, you are *still* choosing to believe Michael Pearl instead of the clear teachings of Jesus Christ, the ONLY Lord & Saviour, in His inspired Words as found in Scripture.
Pretty sure I have never “met” you on the net. And if there is something that Pearl teaches contrary to Scripture, I would love to discuss it. If I truly am wrong, I am not above correction. Just telling me without showing my from Scripture, is not going to change my mind.
Arright, then, Jason my good fellow…you’ve been much less careful with your tone over at WhyNotTrainAChild.com, and Zooey’s not the first person to mention to me that you made your way here from the convo over there. The fact that you replied to Linda and not to Zooey’s comment directly above Linda’s (http://whynottrainachild.com/2011/10/27/michael-pearl-cnn/comment-page-1/#comment-827), which was directly addressed to you, suggests that you do not in fact want to discuss with Zooey.
So, with this last remark, the dialogue has descended from mild baiting tactics, ad hominem against the Parenting In The Name of God team, and word games, to just plain goofy. Welcome to fully moderated status…we keep it fun around here, and we don’t make time for nonsense games. If you’re acting in good faith toward the conversation, you can do Zooey the courtesy of a reply at WhyNotTrainAChild.
Hello again. I am not sure what you are referring to as goofy, or word games but it is not my intention to be goofy or play games. This is a serious topic and I address it as such.
In regard to your accusation that I did not respond to someone, I in fact did. If you look at the way their site is set up, there is only one reply button and then the comments get filed in order of post under that portion of the thread. If you look again, you will notice that. So what I did was respond to her, but my response fell under Linda’s comment which is likely why you thought I was skipping her comment. I will not avoid a post addressed to me at any point for any reason. If you notice she suggested I look at your book, and my response under linda’s addressed the fact that I had looked at the book. If you still feel that I did not fully respond to her post, I will, in good faith, take another shot at it.
If I am offending you or your rules, I will take correction if you can point out to me that which is offensive. It is not my desire to be rude or a distraction. I am a passionate person regarding these doctrinal issues and defending someone who I feel deserves defending. Perhaps my emotions get the best of me and I do not notice, but I assure you it is not my intention.
(Jason to Zooey) “Pretty sure I have never “met” you on the net.”
(Jason to Cat about Zooey) “If you look again, you will notice that. So what I did was respond to her”
Right. Now you’re wasting my time, man. Goodbye.
Actually, if you look again, you will see that my site is just like this one. Each post has a reply button until it reaches the nesting limit, which is 5. That is why I did not reply to the post where you made the comment but chose this one instead, because there is no reply button.
When forced to use a different reply button, one can always address the person by name.
Linda,
Jason was moved to “banned” status after I saw the lengthy replies at your place and the way he conducted himself on other sites where he’s been engaging in the same behavior. However, he’s subscribed to this site and the comments, so I’m sure he’ll receive your remarks.
I was tempted to let him back when the local cowboys joined in–but as you can see, it would get embarrassing for Jason pretty quickly (one does want to know how to tell sarx from soma). I really don’t want to put him through that…
The practice of swamping threads with replies that max out the form’s submission length, including cross-posting the same lengthy comments as a form of commandeering the conversation, is considered trolling. Nice tone doesn’t cover for it, and in looking around the net I see Jason’s tone has not always been good either.
When one wants to make a point in two locations, the normal behavior is simply to post a link to where one has previously made their information available–in fact, the debate crowd I run with often compiles post archives to save time and space when dealing with a discussion point repeatedly in multiple locations. The thread swamping/emotional accusatory behavior is why he’s been banned from other sites, not because he’s a Pearl supporter. I’ve defended Pearl from slander in past, and we made a point in our book to say the man’s life and actions are not on the table for judgment–only the doctrine is under examination.
More of Scienda’s policy and practice on negative online behavior is here: http://scitascienda.wordpress.com/2009/07/08/dealing-with-negative-social-interaction/
Jason, since you understand Pearl better than anyone else and apparently follow his teachings closely, please clarify a few things:
Is all of mankind plagued by original sin?
> I am not actually righteous on my own but I am “made” righteous by the sovereign declaration of God.
That sounds good. So you and Michael Pearl (in his teaching) would admit to being sinful. Would you tell us approximately how long it’s been since you sinned? How long you think it’s been since Pearl has sinned (today, a few days, months, years, since salvation)?
Do you (and Michael Pearl) believe that some edition of The King James Bible is the only true Word of God in English?
Thanks, that will help me understand a little better.
Excellent points, my fine feathered friend. Jason can probably be found over at http://whynottrainachild.com/2011/10/27/michael-pearl-cnn/comment-page-1/, where he’s been doing a fine job of telling people they’re terrible Christians if they oppose Mike Pearl…a fine example of serious discussion of what Scripture says. (yawn)
“The greek word is consistent “sarx”.”
In the passage you cited, the word is soma (σώματος τοῦ θανάτου), not sarx.
“Adam and Eve were created with the same fleshly desires that we have today…Eve chose to obey the pleasantness of her eye and her desire to be wise rather than obey God.”
OK, but which body part did the desire for wisdom arise from? Her arm? Big toe? Islets of Langerhans? Please….please do not say brain. That wouldn’t be wise.
“Sure, the devil was thee coaxing her, but the sin was hers nonetheless.”
And while we’re at it, which body part prompted the devil to generate his primordial sin against God?
“Mike Pearl has never said that the body was sinful and you will not find it in any of his writings”
And you laud this? The Bible clearly teaches that all of man is fallen.
Hey, Jason. I do as well appreciate the restrained tone thus far, so I tell you what. I’ll be happy to engage you in a Pearl-centered debate on a neutral site. Or…make it a site of your choice. Or, choose a champion if you want. No worries…
PS-if you’d like to double down on Reformed Theology when we’re done, I’m your huckleberry.
The above is Marc Schooley, facetiously known as Agent 7, who can be found at http://marcschooley.com/blog/.