Wow. I stepped away from the computer for a couple of days and missed a lot!
All the comments directed towards me were in the earlier pages, so I'll see if I can remember them and respond accordingly.
-- No, I didn't have a negative view of children growing up. I never considered myself much of a "kid person," but that was because many of the younger children were just brats.
-- Ozzie, you don't want your son to obey you? You don't think children should obey their parents? Young children should absolutely obey their parents, but in turn, the parents should be only directing them in ways that are best for them. As they mature, part of raising them should be teaching them how to make good decisions for themselves, but a young child is not capable of that. If your child is going towards a hot stove, or towards a high ledge, and you tell them to stop and return to you, lack of immediate obedience could be extremely harmful to their well-being.
-- Dragonfly: All those quotes from the book... again, I need to see them in context before judging what the intent is. The way some of those points are written are obviously disturbing, but reading someone's brief paraphrase of the book with carefully selected quotes does not convince me that I am getting the intended message of the book. Even many of the replies to this thread speak of "beating" or "whipping" (which the ways ya'll write whipping it's as if we're talking about when people used to whip slaves) as child abuse, and yes, it is, but if you read the Pearl's writing they do not speak of beating a child. Switching, spanking, swatting... they use many words for it but if you look at their description of the act itself, it is supposed to be painful enough that the child sees it as a negative thing, but not enough to actually cause any damage.
-- Ellie: You said "hmm, spanking never did any harm, yet a spanked child grows up to believe that children are subordinate or lesser beings who should be "trained" and need to "obey others", not be their own people or learn from their parents" No, I do not believe that children are lesser beings, but as children they are incapable of raising themselves. Part of raising a child is training them, whether you do it conciously or unconciously. They should obey authority (as long as that authority and command is in line with the Word of God), but one of the goals in raising/training them is to bring them to a point that they can make good decisions for themselves. One of the articles I read on the Pearl's website stated that they think by the mid-late teens, a child should be equipped with the capability of making adult decisions (this is, of course, my own paraphrase of an article I read nearly a week ago. I can search it out if you so desire). That particular article would indicate that they are not trying to raise subordinate beings, but that children have to be subordinate as part of the maturation towards being equals.
Why am I defending them at all? These people have many followers, and the percentage of them who have been publicly accused of child abuse/murder seem fairly small. From what I've read, this is the 3rd death "associated" with the Pearls. How many non-Pearl followers engage in child abuse (even to the point of death) every day? People who are going to abuse their children will find a sick justification for it whether they read a book or not. As someone already stated, there is an innate problem if you cannot tell when you are abusing your child. (But discipline is NOT abuse!)
My first intention when replying to this thread was not to glorify the Pearls in any way. While I do believe that spanking (aka light switching that is used more for the element of surprise (with a negative connotation) rather than any lasting pain) can be an effective tool in training/disciplining/raising your children, I know that the Pearls are not going to be 100%right on everything. No human is perfect, including them. I just don't see the justification in blaming them for a child's death. It is easy to make them a scapegoat because of their publicly confessed convictions, but it is the parents' personal convictions and behavior that need to be examined and blamed.
My husband and I will spank/switch our children. Beginning at what age? That I cannot say. It will depend greatly on the individual child and also our discernment on what the attitude is behind a child's behavior. Are they crying because they are teething and don't feel good? Or are they crying because we spent the past two days with family, they were held constantly, and now just don't want to be put down? Will we make some mistakes? Yes! Every parent does, but we intend to do our best to raise our children as Christians, and as members of society who contribute rather than detract from it. We also intend to employ many other methods of discipline, as we are fairly sure that by the time our children are having children of their own, spanking will be outlawed and I want them to have a wide variety of tools/methods of discipline in their grasp when the time comes, rather than be like many parents who choose not to spank and in turn choose not to discipline at all because they don't even know where to begin.
As for the direction that this thread has taken: The Bible in it's entirety is like a letter to humans, from God. It is not open to multiple, personal interpretations, especially on doctrinal issues. When we write a letter to someone, we have an intended message that it is supposed to get across, we don't write it so they can take their own meaning out of it. Even in literature classes, a professor will ask "What do you think the author of that abstract poem was trying to convey?" not "How many different interpretations can we get out of it?". As for the homosexuality issue, there is an entire thread in the debates forum on gay marriage, and I"ve stated my position there. I still have to go in and reply again, as there were questions directed towards me that I have not yet answered, but I haven't had sufficient time to do so at this point.
My son is not my employee.
I'm sorry.
