Review: To Train Up A Child by Michael and Debi Pearl

I think that the most valuable way to approach To Train Up A Child by Michael and Debi Pearl is to assess it on the basis of its underlying premises. The book is intended to give instruction on how parents can train their children, and is based on two premises:

1. Behaviourism and conditioning.
2. That the child raising methods of Amish communities are applicable for all parents whether Christian or non-Christian. (Note: the Pearls are not Amish)

While there are a few parts of the book that dispense what I consider to be reasonable or helpful advice, much of the book is in my opinion not only unbalanced but at times is promoting abusive practice. Before I continue I need to say that I know that some parents have tried, and later rejected, the methods set out in this book. It is not my intention to pass judgement on anyone in my review - but having read the book I am going to be honest about its contents.

In the introduction to To Train Up A Child the Pearls state that, "These truths are not new, deep insights from the professional world of research, rather, the same principles the Amish use to train their stubborn mules, the same technique God uses to train his children." The advice is not new - it is very much like the Behaviourism of B.F. Skinner, who built on the early research of Pavlov and his dogs. Pavlov conditioned his dogs to expect food when he rang a bell. Eventually the dogs would salivate when the bell rang even if no food was provided. Skinner took those observations, and the truth that in some ways we are conditioned behaviourally, and developed a psychology which reduced humans to a set of conditioned reflexes. This is important to grasp, because what the Pearls do in this book is introduce a humanist worldview into child raising - and throughout the book raising children is compared to training animals, such as horses, mules, dogs, and mice. 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."

Although a few bible verses are added, the reality is that this book is based on a humanist psychology and the norms of what would be accurately called a very closed system - an Amish community. The latter point is important, because in a very closed system there are rules and norms that will not transfer to an open system. What may serve to reinforce the Amish way of life does not necessarily strengthen or reinforce a family that is not Amish. There is also the question of whether the Pearls accurately represent the Amish way of raising children. That is something that the Amish may be able to provide an answer to.

One of the serious concerns I have concerning this book is that the "training" involves repetitive and artificial situations - which in themselves would be frustrating for a child. Here's an example:

"The child of ten to twelve months is left alone to become deeply interested in a toy or some delightful object. From across the room or just inside the other room, the father calls the child. If he ignores the call, the father goes to him and explains the necessity of immediately coming when called, and then leads him to the father's chair. The child thus led through these paces is being programmed. He is returned to the toy and left alone long enough to again become engrossed. Another call, and, if no response, the father gives a patient explanation and demonstration of the desired response. The parent, having assured himself of the child's understanding, once again sets up the situation and calls the child. This time, if there is not an immediate response the child is lightly spanked and lectured. The father continues this throughout the evening until the child readily and immediately responds to a summons."

What does a small child really learn from this? That when he is engrossed in an activity which is perfectly fine he will be called away and sent back several times - with no purpose. Yes, he'll become behaviourally obedient, but why is it necessary to do so artificially? There is no regard here for the fact that the child is actually behaving well - he is playing with an acceptable toy and not misbehaving. I need to stress here that when this is the consistent type of method used as a child is growing up they are learning that they can be interrupted constantly from a constructive task (play is constructive) for no purposeful reason. At a level, which they learn to suppress in front of their parents, they are going to feel frustrated and provoked. To put it another way - if some-one kept interrupting me for no good reason other than to show they can do so I would not appreciate it. The underlying reason for such an approach is not to obtain good behaviour but to exercise control. Why would we change our actions on issues of integrity toward children? If there's no reason to keep calling a child repeatedly, why do so? It is in examples like this, and there are others in the book, that the Pearls place parental control and external conformity above what I consider respect for the image of God in the child.

The most concerning aspect of the book is in Chapter 5, entitled "The Rod". I'd like to preface my remarks here by saying that some parents use physical discipline and some don't. My assessment of the Pearl's position is not based on a pro- or anti-physical discipline position - but on their inability to understand the value of certain boundaries. The Pearls advocate the use of switches, belts and tree branches to administer physical discipline. Michael Pearl states:

"Any spanking, to effectively reinforce instruction, must cause pain, but the most pain is on the surface of bare skin where the nerves are located. A surface sting will cause sufficient pain, with no injury or bruising. Select your instrument according to the child's size. For the under one year old, a little, ten- to twelve-inch long, willowy branch (striped of any knots that might break the skin) about one-eighth inch diameter is sufficient. Sometimes alternatives have to be sought. A one-foot ruler, or its equivalent in a paddle, is a sufficient alternative. For the larger child, a belt or larger tree branch is effective."

There is no lower or upper age limit given for using a switch. The Pearls openly advocate switching babies with branches, rulers or paddles. And let's keep in mind that the switching can be adminstered in artificially created situations. In other words - situations are deliberately created in which babies will be switched with tree branches, rulers or paddles. At this point my assessment is that this is abusive. A baby cannot problem-solve situations in the way that an older child can. Whipping them to produce a behaviour is out of proportion with their intellectual and emotional capabilities. The Pearls approach is pure behaviourism, and it overlooks the normal developmental process of infants. Rather than being a developing person, the baby is an object that can be controlled. My concern, apart from the detached objectification of one's child involved in this method, is that pain is used as the controlling instrument.

Another aspect of the book concerns whipping other people's children. Examples are given of Debi Pearl physically disciplining some-one else's child who was in her home, and of continually hitting a child with a plastic toy while he was in his mother's lap, until:

"You could see the little mental computer working. As if to test his new theory, again, but with less force, he struck. The immediately returned blow was not diminished in strength. This time, I thought he would cry. No, after looking at his mother, as if to say, "What is this new thing?" he again, and with even less force, struck my wife on the arm. I was thinking, "She will lighten up this time and match his diminished intensity." Again, my wife struck, seemingly, with all the force she could possibly muster without standing for a wind-up."

There are two important considerations here. Firstly, in my culture, we do not physically hit or discipline other peoples children. Children understand this, and if there is a problem then parents are advised and parents deal with it. So the examples given in To Train Up A Child really reflect a very different way of life, and no mention is made of parents protesting that some-one else has hit their children. Secondly, although the Pearls attempt to give a biblical basis for the methods outlined in their book, I find no biblical basis for anyone other than parents administering physical discipline to their children. When reading about Debi Pearl hitting others children I was left with the sense that the issue was one of displaying power and the use of force was inappropriate.

There are some parts of the book that are reasonable. Michael Pearl talks about not creating divides with children - and recommends spending time with them in enjoyable activities. Yet the overall purpose is not altered - to behaviourally control the children. Some bible verses are quoted as proof texts without contextual exegesis, and in my view the Pearls do not have the balance of scripture in their approach. Michael Pearl promotes an almost evolutionary view of a child's development - he says:

"Understand, we are not suggesting that a child can be trained into the Christian experience, only that the mind and body should be developed to its highest possible natural discipline."

Elsewhere in the section entitled 'The Power of "Absolution"' he states:

"The parent holds in his hand (in the form of a little switch) the power to absolve the child of guilt, cleanse his soul, instruct his spirit, strengthen his resolve, and give him a fresh start through a confidence that all indebtedness is paid."

Without quoting extensively, the strong impression I have is that the the behaviourism promoted is at times construed by the Pearls as on a par with spiritual effects which can only be achieved by the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit. The book is confused in this way - claiming to be effective for both Christians and non-Christians to train children, yet also claiming that a child is somehow spiritually absolved by the methods employed. The Pearl's theology on sin and God's imputation of righteousness is not one I agree with. The position given is that children are not imputed sin until:

"There will come a time when, through the development of the understanding, the conscience will be awakened, and for these things they will be counted blameworthy."

It is doctrinally confused, saying that children sin but this is not accounted as sin until they develop a conscience, which occurs through the administering of parental discipline. This same discipline absolves the child. However Michael Pearl states that he does not know at what age this moral capacity - to hear conscience - develops. The reader needs to be clear that all have sinned, and while the issue of childhood and innocence is one that is debated theologically, scripture is clear that we are justified by faith, not the works of the law. It is also clear that we are saved by faith through grace. The laws for training children in this book cannot substitute for the atoning work of Christ and justification by faith in him. It is, as I have pointed out, behaviourism.

There is much more I could say about this book. Many other aspects are concerning, and although there are parts that are passable the majority of the book exemplifies inappropriate boundaries, is humanist, and is biblically unbalanced. In particular the habit of projecting adult motives onto childrens behaviour is disturbing. I am not Amish and so do not know if this book accurately reflects child raising in Amish communities, or if it only reflects the Pearl's particular circle of influence. I do know that I cannot recommend it as a book with a sound Christian worldview.

Also see my related post:
Michael and Debi Pearl's No Greater Joy Ministries: A Look at the Basics