My chapter-by-chapter review of CTBHHM
(Although no, I guess it's not really a true "review" - not quite sure what to call it LOL! Basically it's what "spoke" to me - both good and bad - as I read it.)
I have 5 chapters left. But to be quite honest, I am just tired of it. I feel like such a flake for not wanting to finish blogging about it, especially since there ARE good tidbits of info. and some good advice that Mrs. Pearl shares with us! But truly, chapter 23 is what put this book into the "I Cannot Recommend This Book In Any Form or Fashion" category, and I have no idea where to even BEGIN on that chapter! (And I'm sure that anyone who reads this and thinks I just "have it out for the Pearls" or that I'm a feminist or that I'm rebellious and unsubmissive will read all sorts of things into that statement, which is fine...whatever. Most likely those things are SO not true, but why even bother defending myself, KWIM?)
I dunno...I want to finish it, yet I feel like I'd be beating a dead horse. So. I'm going to be praying about whether I need to finish blogging about it. But I wanted to give a heads up (LOL, if there's anyone who has just been chomping at the bit for the next chapter! 
) just in case I don't finish the series.
Barbara wrote,
i HAVE been wondering…i can’t blame you for being burnt out over it, especially with all the hoopla…
you did a great job Keer! thanks for taking it on
Link | October 7th, 2005 at 5:20 am
Jessica wrote,
So you would say Chapter 23 is the worst? I’ve been following your reviews…and can honestly say I’d be worried about a woman in the wrong circumstances reading that book, but I can say that about a lot of books similar. People offer advice, and outline specific appropriate and non-appropriate behavioral advice to an audience they can’t see.
Link | October 7th, 2005 at 6:32 am
sparrow wrote,
You have my permission to quit reviewing! There, don’t you feel better?
I am feeling a whole lot burnt out on this topic too. I’m having a CTBHHM-free weekend.
Link | October 7th, 2005 at 7:57 am
DollyMama wrote,
Well, I’ve missed you for the past few days.
Does that count for anything?
I can imagine that with so many chapters in the book, you’d be burnt out. Of course, now I’m curious what chapter 23 is about! But, I guess I can live with that. If I have to.
Link | October 7th, 2005 at 8:15 am
Hillary wrote,
You have done a great job! Do what is best for you; I have enjoyed reading along! Thankyou for taking your time to do this! God bless.
Link | October 7th, 2005 at 9:11 am
razorbackmama wrote,
Thanks for missing me!
My parents have been in town this week (haven’t seen them in over a year!), so I’ve been busy with that and with preparing for our new school year, which supposedly starts Tuesday. Yikes!
Chapter 23 discusses when it’s OK to disobey your husband.
Link | October 7th, 2005 at 9:16 am
WeathertopMama wrote,
I wish you would finish! (although I can tell you 100% that if it were me, I would drop it and spend awhile trying to clear any lingering Pearl stuff out of my head)
IMHO, the work could be considered done. Everybody has had a chance to see the flavor of the book, and the concerns about the Pearls’ doctrines have been brought to light.
What’s more, the lines have been drawn. It no longer really matters what Debi Pearl says later in the book because there are only two kinds of people: those who will take it well because they like/respect the Pearls, and those who take it badly because they don’t.
I assume when you started this you had no idea what would happen! Sorry you’ve been put thru the wringer. Prayers for peace for you, whether you finish the book review or not! ~Amy
Link | October 7th, 2005 at 10:04 am
razorbackmama wrote,
Amy,
Oh my goodness no I didn’t have any idea what was going to happen when I started blogging about this book! The sole purpose for starting to blog about it was to see if there were others out there like me who had concerns about it. I had heard nothing but good about the book and began an online study with it. As I read I kept thinking, So what is the big deal? And then it turned into some major eyebrow-raising and more of a But Scripture doesn’t say that! And of course intermingled with, Yes, that is great advice, and I need to take that to heart. Since I thought I was all alone, I started blogging about it to see if I was just WAY off. WOW I never knew or even imagined what all would stem from it!
Sadly, I think you’re right. Lines HAVE been drawn. I don’t like that they have, nor do I think they SHOULD have been. I’m not sure why it is this way either, but it’s quite distressing.
Link | October 7th, 2005 at 10:19 am
Threefold Cord wrote,
Kirstin,
I want you to know that I think you have done a good job. I think you have been kind and fair.
I have hated how this whole thing (not caused by you, don’t misunderstand!) just how it has been so divisive and how angry we can all get with one another. I am a debater by nature, it is in my blood, and yet, I am just so weary of the fighting.
Do what you think best.
Love, Holly
Link | October 7th, 2005 at 10:48 am
Corrie wrote,
Hi!
How about just skipping to Chapter 23 and finishing off your review of that Chapter?
Of course, I support you in whatever you feel like doing. You do what is best for you and your family. This is not an easy thing to undertake, especially when there are so many who refuse to separate their like for the Pearls with the need to arrive at Biblical truth. That is the reason for the unwarranted accusations and insinuations.
But, someday your words and the words of others and the example you set will start some balls into motion and many of these people will come to the realization of the importance of sticking to sola scriptura rather than standing behind mere humans who have some serious theological bents.
Or you could always move on to fluffier and less controversial book reviews, like the Pearls’ book on s*x.
Link | October 7th, 2005 at 10:55 am
Kimberly wrote,
If you choose not to finish it, I’ll understand. But, to be honest, I really hope you do. Take another week off, and pray about it. I’ll respect your decision either way!
And I’ve missed ya!
Link | October 7th, 2005 at 2:21 pm
Barbara wrote,
CORRIE!!!!!!!
BWAAAHAHAHAHHAAA!!!!
Link | October 7th, 2005 at 2:23 pm
razorbackmama wrote,
Nope, won’t be tackling that book. Michael Pearl looks just TOOOOOOOO much like my dad, and that is just not a mental image I want to have in my head!!!
Link | October 7th, 2005 at 2:26 pm
TulipGirl wrote,
“. . .those who will take it well because they like/respect the Pearls, and those who take it badly because they don’t.”
Except. . . My understanding is that several of those who have helped point out the weaknesses of CTBHHM were coming from a positive feeling towards the Pearls initially. And as the problems with that book became clearer, they started looking at the Pearls and their teachings more carefully.
The Pearls lost my respect years ago, so I don’t fit in this new category.
But it is interesting to see how many people are unwilling to discuss what the Pearls are actually saying, and instead are so willing to defend what they read into what the Pearls are saying.
Link | October 7th, 2005 at 5:35 pm
CrazyJo wrote,
Keer, if it makes you feel better, I’ve enjoyed reading your posts for the good things you’ve pointed out (and also pointing out error). I had picked up the book and browsed through it, happened on Chapt. 23 and couldn’t bring myself to read the whole thing. You’ve brought out good things from the book I need to be reminded of without me having to seeth over certain things (and I didn’t really have an opinion of the Pearls prior to this since I’d never read their stuff).
Link | October 7th, 2005 at 8:00 pm
Kim wrote,
If a book makes me churn a lot, my husband can tell, and he always says very gently “Put it down now.” I had to do this with a few books. Sometimes, it’s just not edifying.
Link | October 8th, 2005 at 5:04 am
Lydia wrote,
Re: “especially when there are so many who refuse to separate their like for the Pearls with the need to arrive at Biblical truth. That is the reason for the unwarranted accusations and insinuations.”
Speaking as one who “likes” the Pearls, I want to make a couple comments. I definitely believe in the need to arrive at Biblical truth. I am on the lookout for truly false doctrine. I am open to discussing where ministries are in error. However, when I do so, I am always very careful to add the caveat – these are my brothers and sisters in the Lord, and while I disagree with them on this point, I respect them, and I respect the fact that they are doing what they believe God has called them to do. There would have to be some very serious doctrinal error – as in denying Christ’s sacrifice and atoning power – denying that He is the only way to God – for me to make some of the comments that have been made.
Unfortunately, many of the reviews have not included this caveat. They have made an effort to be fair-minded, and in one sense they are, but I feel there has been a mistake made as they have not extended grace to the Pearls to minister and speak at the place they are with God.
Keer has said, “I’m going to be bold here and just flat out say that the Pearls are false teachers, plain and simple.”
Another review responded, “Well I have to agree with you - what you say is correct by biblical standards.”
Here is a sampling of some other comments posted by many different people at various blogs:
“You have done us a great service by pointing this out. Thank you. I hope people will take this seriously. Teaching an erroneous doctrine of man strikes at the heart of the gospel.”
“The fact of the matter is the book is inconsistent with scripture and with the very standards that the Pearl’s claim to hold.”
“The Pearls’ material is what we’ve trusted and gone by for years now. It is shaking the foundation that I have with their readings. I was just going to order about 100$ worth of their material, and now, I can’t believe that they may be leading people astray.”
“It is time to get honest - the Pearl’s have serious error in their teaching.”
“I just printed off what you just wrote and my husband read it and said, “This man is a heretic.””
“The reason why the double standard is because Debi Pearl loathes women . . .
I shudder to think what the Pearl’s relationship is like.”
“I’m appalled by what I read about the Pearl’s doctrine.”
“In my mind, the Pearls have left orthodox Christianity and shouldn’t have any place teaching anyone about the Bible.”
Me again:
It is wonderful to be able to express our opinions – I am all for that. But, in such a public forum, our words have great power. They have great power to discredit and cast a shadow over an entire ministry. There are many women reading who never comment, yet take what we write as the final word. I believe in “sola Scriptura,” but we all know there are many different interpretations on much of the Bible doctrine taught. Can you truly say, that the doctrine the Pearls teach is enough to disfellowship them? Can we not extend them the courtesy and respect due to fellow believers? My heart is truly grieved over these discussions. Yes, let’s discuss theology. Yes, let’s discuss the Pearl’s theology. But let’s do so with grace, kindness, understanding, and Christian love. Above all, in all we write, it should be absolutely and repeatedly clear to anyone reading that until otherwise unequivocally proven, the Pearls are respected and esteemed as citizens of the Kingdom. Hey, we’ll all be together one day.
Link | October 8th, 2005 at 4:22 pm
clearing wrote,
I don’t know…. finishing sounds a lot like self imposed slavery. This is a blog, not a Master’s Thesis. Oh, did you say it IS your thesis? ~~!!!~~
I was going to suggest we just talk about trite subjects…er, like perfume.
Worn anything you *L o V E* lately? :O
XXXX
C
PS… I think you did a great job with all of the previous chapter reviews. Love you K!
Link | October 8th, 2005 at 4:24 pm
razorbackmama wrote,
Lydia,
“Unfortunately, many of the reviews have not included this caveat. They have made an effort to be fair-minded, and in one sense they are, but I feel there has been a mistake made as they have not extended grace to the Pearls to minister and speak at the place they are with God.”
I’m not sure how much you have read over here, but I have said pretty much the same thing. It was under chapter 15.
“There would have to be some very serious doctrinal error – as in denying Christ’s sacrifice and atoning power – denying that He is the only way to God – for me to make some of the comments that have been made.”
Original sin is quite a biggie.
“Keer has said, ‘I’m going to be bold here and just flat out say that the Pearls are false teachers, plain and simple.’
“Another review responded, ‘Well I have to agree with you - what you say is correct by biblical standards.’”
You left out some pretty important parts of the comments. Catez (the one who responded) continued with, “And we see these doctrines are not new. I prefer to refer to the teaching as it’s that which is disseminated.”
And I replied with, “Thank you for clarifying my statement, and yes, that’s what I meant.”
So perhaps I was a bit overboard with the “false teacher” comment - what I MEANT was that they were teaching a false doctrine.
I can’t really comment on the other comments you posted since they were at various blogs, nor did I say them.
“Can you truly say, that the doctrine the Pearls teach is enough to disfellowship them?”
I’m not sure about others, but I personally have said nothing about disfellowshipping them.
“Can we not extend them the courtesy and respect due to fellow believers?My heart is truly grieved over these discussions. Yes, let’s discuss theology. Yes, let’s discuss the Pearl’s theology. But let’s do so with grace, kindness, understanding, and Christian love.”
And that is exactly what I’m trying to do. I have to admit that I am very frustrated in doing so, because it seems that anything negative I might say about their THEOLOGY gets misconstrued as me saying something negative about THEM. If I question something that they say I am called names or am told that I’m being hateful and ungracious. I’m also frustrated because Mrs. Pearl has been asked questions point blank about statements in her book, and she has yet to reply to the people asking.
Yes, the Pearls’ theology concerns me. Is it because of Catez’s post? No. It is because of statements I have read from Rebekah Pearl. It is because of statements I have read in their newsletter regarding their theology. It is because of statements made by people who have adopted the Pearls’ doctrine as a direct result of listening to the Pearls’ teaching tapes.
That’s not why I started blogging about this book anyway. I’ve shared (repeatedly) why I started blogging about it. Learning about their doctrine actually completed a puzzle of sorts, since the doctrine totally fits in with some of the problems I had with the book. So my main goal really isn’t to debate their doctrine per se, but since the book involves their doctrine, I can’t overlook the doctrine.
Link | October 8th, 2005 at 9:47 pm
Lydia wrote,
“I have to admit that I am very frustrated in doing so, because it seems that anything negative I might say about their THEOLOGY gets misconstrued as me saying something negative about THEM.”
When you make a comment such as this,
“I’m going to be bold here and just flat out say that the Pearls are false teachers, plain and simple.”
Then I don’t think I am misconstruing you as saying something negative about them.
“I’m not sure about others, but I personally have said nothing about disfellowshipping them.”
How can calling the Pearls false teachers, “plain and simple” be anything other than disfellowshipping them?
“So perhaps I was a bit overboard with the “false teacher” comment - what I MEANT was that they were teaching a false doctrine.”
“Perhaps” many people “meant” something else. My point is that we are part of a much greater online community. Our words are public and have much influence. I feel that we need to be extra careful in saying exactly what we mean, not only in what we blog but what we comment. Let’s say we’re in a conversation with a friend and we fall into gossip or whatever – we can go back to that person and apologize and make things right. Online, our words are more permanent. Yes, we could issue an apology, but we don’t know everyone who has read our words. Maybe they aren’t regular readers of the blog. The casualness of blogging and especially commenting can cause us to be too relaxed in what we say and hurtful of fellow Christians. Blogs are not our own personal diary.
I only posted these quotes, because I have read comments basically saying – where’s the nastiness? I think everyone’s being fair, etc. The quotes I posted were made by many of the main reviewers.
The doctrine of original sin is possibly a “biggie.” I think Michael Pearl’s position has been made to be more than it is. He does believe we are “under the curse.” He does not believe that unregenerated man can obey God prior to salvation. I have read the verses that have been quoted. Is there a verse that actually uses the words “fallen nature?” To directly quote MP, “When a descendent of Adam reaches a level of moral understanding (sometime in his youth) he becomes fully, personally accountable to God and has sin imputed to him, resulting in the peril of eternal damnation. No man is capable of rectifying this state of estrangement from God. Apart from the free gift of God through the substitutionary work of Christ there is no hope of salvation.” This is not a heretical viewpoint. This is more of a difference in opinion on the fate of children who die before reaching the “age of accountability” (also a commonly held belief).
I am not trying to be accusatory or stir the pot more than it already has been. I would like to share my viewpoint and perhaps be a voice for Christian charity, grace, and peace. I do not think the ecumenical movement is always right, but I do believe, “In Essentials, Unity; in Non-essentials, Liberty; in All Things, Charity.” I do not believe it has been shown that Michael Pearl has erred in those “essentials.”
Link | October 8th, 2005 at 10:31 pm
razorbackmama wrote,
Lydia, I’m not exactly sure just what you are wanting me to say. I retracted my “false teacher” statement, but no, I will not retract the “false doctrine”.
And YES, you’re right, we do need to be careful with our words online. On both sides.
Honestly my concerns about original sin don’t stem from their statement of faith. It’s from comments like these:
“I think some of the amazement you may feel over the stories or the presentation of the stories and letters probably stems from a belief that we all have a sinful nature and therefore our natural reactions cannot be good.” - Rebekah Pearl at http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/devdoordeborah/26344
“A baby is not born sinful or guilty of sin.” - a commenter who holds the same doctrine as MP
There are more, but I don’t have time right now to comb through all sorts of NGJ archives and such to find the statements.
But really, my concerns about CTBHHM (which is what *I* am focusing on on this blog) involve more than the doctrine, so even if they held the exact same doctrine that I did, I’d STILL have problems with the book. (And no, it’s not because I’m rebellious or a Jezebel.
)
Link | October 8th, 2005 at 11:13 pm
Serena wrote,
And that brings up one of the things that does not get addressed by the people who are following the Pearls. What about how many of them have accused those who disagree with being Jezebels and rebellious? What about those who have accused someone who reviews their book negatively as being slanderous?
Honestly, Paul named those teaching false teachings by name. No one is wrong pointing out the error of the Pearls or negatively reviewing their books. That is what happens when someone writes a book. They will get some positive reviews and some negative ones. That is life. James says not to be many teachers for they will receive the greater judgment.
So now if we speak up about the way they twist scripture, we are unloving? Well, I know I have prayed that I would speak the truth in love, but that does not mean I’m not going to speak the truth. So now we have to be politically correct, right? That is a big problem that has entered the “body of Messiah.”
I have been in a “church” that was very similar to the Pearls and it did great damage to my family. They are off on other areas than original sin. I have not seen love come from those that follow them, either, but accusations and name-calling. But then, Debi does that in her book, doesn’t she? How is that okay? I can tell you it is a form of manipulation and control and it is working just great from what I can see.
Love and shalom,
Serena
Link | October 9th, 2005 at 6:06 am
Lydia wrote,
You know, I have heard that there was name-calling on the other side. It was prior to me following this discussion. I think that is just as deplorable and wrong - it is absolutely terrible! I also do not encourage politically correct thinking and am not trying to be the thought police - I agree that is ridiculous. What I am saying by pointing out these quotes is that I don’t feel the comments and discussion have always been loving or laced with grace. I agree with you, Debi Pearl was very plain-spoken in her book. Some people didn’t mind - some people felt she was calling names. I can 100% see how using the words fat, lazy, undisciplined, etc. can be offensive. I see no problem with feeling that way. I can truly see how some women could find Debi’s tone offensive - and no, I do not think they are automatically unsubmissive Jezebels. Those type of comments are hurtful and so very personal. What I am saying is I feel the line of civility was crossed on both sides. I think it ventured into slander on the one side (thus the sampling of quotes I posted). It sounds like it degenerated into name-calling and judgmental put-downs on the other. We are ALL Christians. We are God-fearing, family-loving, children-loving, hopefully sister-loving, women of God. We are all called to a higher place in our conversation. We don’t have the “right” to stoop to attack - no matter if we feel Debi did it, no matter who does it. We are held to a high standard. Like I said before, critique the books that are written - they’re a public commodity and open to review. Critique the Pearl’s theology. I just think we absolutely must qualify our comments. i.e. Debi Pearl sometimes comes across as harsh - but I love her, she’s my sister in the Lord. And make sure that is said repeatedly. We are obligated to the law of love. At those times when it means to speak up and be a voice it must be done with a voice of love. We must all search our hearts - of course, me included. Are we speaking because of genuine concern for both parties? - or are our motives to discredit an individual, put-down another Christian woman, malign a ministry, sound educated and brilliant? I’m not saying that these were any specific person’s motives. Only God can see the heart. As far as Paul naming names, it is fine to name names. But Paul did it to expose sin. Just based on the on-going discussion, there’s a lot of disagreement as to whether MP has crossed that line or not. I don’t think any of us would debate the examples used in the Bible.
As far as the Pearls go, there were some very valid points raised, some of the reviews were right on. I just don’t think they were always expressed with Christian charity. I have begun reading the blogs of many of the women I quoted. They are some awesome ladies! I have been touched and ministered to by so much of what they have written. These are women that so obviously love God, the truth, and their families. They are deep-thinking and deep-feeling women. I have great respect for their points-of-view and their firmly held beliefs. Sometimes that does not come across in the the comments (on both sides).
Link | October 9th, 2005 at 10:07 am
TulipGirl wrote,
Lydia,
You are right–what is put online is much more permanent than what many of us often consider it to be. I think of messageboards and blogs very much as conversation, when it’s more akin (and probably more permanent in some regards) to magazine publishing. We do need to be careful and responsible for our words.
You stated, “My point is that we are part of a much greater online community. Our words are public and have much influence. I feel that we need to be extra careful in saying exactly what we mean. . .”
That is so true. And yet. . .
You are holding your sisters in Christ, who are holding informal conversations online, to a standard that seems higher than you are holding a *teacher* with works published both in book form and online. Works that are more formal and more widely disseminated than what is written by the women and men online.
You can read on the Pearls’ website that they think of those who disagree with them to be “possessed damsels” who “must not have much of a love life or family life. . .” That’s not showing grace nor respect to sisters in Christ. In fact far from it–possessed?
And, while I agree, that the what we say in our online communities have a great reach–very few of us are setting ourselves up as teachers. And the Bible does hold teachers to a higher standard of conduct and carefulness in teaching the Word. If I believe something less-than-orthodox, that’s one thing. If I am actively teaching it, that is another. And that IS what Michael and Debi Pearl are doing.
Again, I agree with your caution, “. . our words have great power. They have great power to discredit and cast a shadow over an entire ministry.”
But what is of a higher concern to me is how the Pearls’ words have great power–great power to damage and harm many families. And I’ve witnessed it. Power to chain Christians up with legalism–turning to living by “principles” rather than walking day by day, relying upon the Holy Spirit, keeping focused on our need for the Gospel in all we do.
Link | October 9th, 2005 at 1:43 pm
Lydia wrote,
Tulip Girl - and all,
Thank you for responding so graciously. I didn’t think I would write again, as I don’t want to seem to be having to have the last word, by any means. But, I do appreciate the points you have made and they do have much merit.
You know what someone said really is a little true - it comes down to those who like the Pearls and those who don’t. I have noticed (in real life & online) that whether we like someone or not really does determine what we will overlook or not. As the Bible says, “Love covers a multitude of sins.” For example, regarding Keer’s comment - her friends who love her will think - “Oh, but that’s Keer and she’s really a wonderful person and I know she’s such a Godly wife and mother, so I know she didn’t really mean to come across that way. If you only knew her, you’d see just what I mean. Read the rest of what’s she written and you’ll see she’s balanced out that comment over here and over here. ” (and it would probably be completely true!) Well, I think that’s how a lot of people who are somewhat defensive about the Pearls feel. “Yes, Debi should have said it more like this . . . but, based on these other things she’s written - and the body of her articles, I just know she’s trying to say–whatever . . . ” We even balance Scripture in that manner – making sure to support Scripture with Scripture. So, I guess if I “knew” you all a little better, maybe the chit-chat wouldn’t have seemed so mean-spirited.
You’re right - when I read Debi Pearl, I read right over those statements, because I feel like I “know” her and (for me) I think she is bringing a word that is missing in a lot of parenting and marriage materials. I do feel a little more comfortable speaking up in this type of forum than calling the Pearls to question for their insensitive comments—I will have to think about why that is. (Although, silly as it may seem, my heart was sure pounding when I made my first comment—beyond our group blog, I really haven’t had a lot to say about this publicly.)
As far as the Pearl’s teaching breeding legalism, I do not feel they have had that effect on me. I have used their teachings to learn how to enjoy my children, build relationships, love my husband more freely and to watch the many small ways I may be manipulating our relationship. I could see how someone that is already prone to legalism could read their materials and see only the principles and not the relationship. But, don’t you think this person may have already been leaning this direction? What perspective were they coming from before they picked up the materials – what was their view on life – and what glasses were they looking through before they ever picked up a Pearl book? I think that is why we can have so many different thoughts on the Pearls even amongst wonderful, loving Christian women. We are all bringing our extremely different backgrounds, personal life experiences, prior reading and knowledge to the table. We should be able to sit together at that table and say, “I’m sorry, I can’t see exactly what you’re saying. I do have a different perspective, but maybe one day this will be clearer to me or clearer to you. In the meantime, I love you. How can I help support you in your parenting and your marriage? How can I pray for you – here’s how you could pray for me.”
And you’re right, the quotes you posted of theirs taken at face value are not very nice or respectful of their fellow Christians at all. Am I sounding like Tevya yet? You know the scene in “Fiddler on the Roof” where Tevya is caught in an argument between two Rabbis. The first one makes a point. “You’re right!” Tevya says. The second Rabbi makes a contradictory point. “You’re right!” Tevya says. A third Rabbi, looking on, says, “Wait a minute, they can’t *both* be right.” “You know,” Tevya says, “you’re right too.” Some things are like that. It’s not being wishy washy or politically correct to see and like more than one side. It would just be so wonderful if we could discuss this with a smile and some kindness. I am certainly not intending to hand out a reprimand or call anyone to task for their behavior – God know, I’ve certainly said/written things I’ve regretted. I truly hope I haven’t come across that way – and if I have, please forgive me. To me, there just really was an overall unpleasantly critical *tone* to a lot that was written.
Regarding online being so public – I think you’re right on with the magazine analogy. I think if any one of us were asked to speak to a group of 500 women, we’d fine-tune our speech several times. Well, we often have that size audience at different blogs, but as we sit here typing at our computer, we imagine our conversation to be more one-on-one – which makes for interesting reading, but is not always as Christlike as it should be. Again, thank you all for your nice responses. I was a little nervous about jumping in here—and maybe I shouldn’t have, but you’ve all been very kind. (I think this is the last I will have to say - I know I’ve been pretty long-winded.) Blessings to all.
Link | October 9th, 2005 at 3:58 pm
Dawn wrote,
Keer,
I don’t think you need to defend yourself anymore than you already have. You have not been slanderous, hateful or less than gracious. Your words have been cautious and where you may have been “stronger” than ideal, you have admitted to it.
Tulipgirl was right on - teachers are held to a very high standard and we are NOT called to accept their words when they teach false doctrine or unbiblical “advice”. The bottom line is that you disagree with much of the Pearls book BASED ON SCRIPTURE, NOT ON YOUR “DISLIKE” OF THE PEARLS.
You have stood firm on what you know to be true and have not wavered. You have done so with love and with concern for the hearts of your sisters in Christ. I am saddened and sorry that it has been misinterpreted by other christians.
IMO, no more review is necessary. For your sake, put the book down and walk away.
Link | October 9th, 2005 at 6:32 pm
Catez wrote,
“Can you truly say, that the doctrine the Pearls teach is enough to disfellowship them?”
I’m going to be honest here. I posted a look at some of the Pearl’s doctrine. It was not personal about the Pearls, or about anyone else. Since I posted it I have been called slanderous, biased, ungracious, selective, not fair-minded, and strong insinuations have been made that I’m a liar. And that was just one person. Well, two people have stooped that low actually. And that was before they even listened to the Pearl’s teaching tapes. Let’s get honest here.
Now the arguments are “how can you disfellowship the Pearls?” Good question. How on earth can I disfellowship people I’ve never met who live thousands of miles away from me? What I can do is to say that there are serious errors in their teaching, and I cannot recommend the teaching to anyone.
As I’ve said elsewhere in this ongoing discussion, just because I don’t accept the teaching doesn’t mean I have don’t love some-one. It is not wrong to look at their doctrine and hold it to the light of scripture.
Re: all those quoted comments. So Keer said they are false teachers. And I gently steered her comment to something I thought a bit more appropriate which got to what she really meant. So? What has that got to do with people teaching error on essential basic doctrine? All this about “disfellowshipping” is irrelevant. It is not disfellowshipping to let people know there are major problems in a teaching and it is not disfellowshipping to not buy their material - there is plenty of other great Christian teaching available that is not in error on major points.
Let me emphasise:
A PERSON DOESN’T HAVE TO LIKE THE PEARL’S TEACHING OR RECOMMEND IT, OR BE SILENT ABOUT THE ERROR IN IT.
That is not being slanderous or ungracious - it is about what what one believes, what one spends money on as God’s steward, and what one recommends to other brothers and sisters. In response to this:
“The doctrine of original sin is possibly a “biggie.” I think Michael Pearl’s position has been made to be more than it is. He does believe we are “under the curse.” He does not believe that unregenerated man can obey God prior to salvation. I have read the verses that have been quoted.”
Lydia, if you did read the comments on other blogs then you’ll know that this has been answered. What does MP mean by “the curse”? Not what most Christians think it means. He means physical death - we are physically separated from the tree and can’t eat the fruit - so our bodies age and die. He does believe unregenerate man can obey God in some ways but admits they commit sin. He categorically states we are not born with Adam’s sin passed on to us and that we do not have a sinful nature.
Eph 2:3 says “We were by nature children of wrath”. MP would not agree as his KJV bible is different. However many other translators do agree - and this is one of the problems of the Pearl’s KJV-onlyism. As well as that, the bible is clear in other places about our nature and so on. May I suggest yuou do a study or ask your pastor or minister to point you to one?
All of this stuff about a few comments by people on blogs is a red herring from the real and serious issues to my mind. If it was any other teaching material we would critique it, and that would be that. I’ve reviewed boks and others have reviewed them and been less positive than me - I haven’t charged around blogs making a storm over it and saying they are “disfellowshipping” the author or that some-one left a comment on their blog and I didn’t like it. People leave comments on blogs. Some comments are better than others. There are more serious issues - such as the doctrinal error in the Pearl’s teaching.
It is my assessment that the Pearls are teaching error on basic essential doctrine. I cannot recommend their teaching material to anyone.
The latest thing seems to be that one should be “balanced” talking about their stuff. But “balanced” seems to mean minimising to me - as in minimise the serious error and say “well this bit over here is ok”. That’s not balance - that’s putting things out of balance. Some issues are much bigger than others - they carry more weight. If the weightier matters are flawed then it needs to be pointed out.
Keer,
I understand your reluctance to finish blogging the book. Just ask the Lord - there’s no law. If you think he wants you to finish then fine, and if not then as you say, you got to a chapter that showed you that you can’t recommend the book anyway. There’s no fault in saying that either.
God bless you.
Link | October 9th, 2005 at 7:34 pm
TulipGirl wrote,
Lydia, I want to clarify something. . . I don’t believe that parents using TTUAC makes them legalistic. I don’t think wives reading CTBHHM make them legalistic. And just the little I’ve seen of you, I don’t think you are legalistic. *grin*
But I still see the Pearls’ teachings leading to legalism in many families.
My comment on “legalism” was written with the assumption that all the things I was thinking of related to that term would be communicated telepathically to readers. Or something. *grin* Your comment and another one helped me realize you were understanding it different than I was writing it.
I have seen through nearly two decades within the communities most accepting of the Pearls (and similar teachings), families go in directions that I want to avoid. And none of these families *intended* to go in those directions. But yes, legalism.
Not legalism imposed by parents, per se, but children who grow up with certain expectations (cultural, not Biblical ones.) And they strive so hard to keep these subculture expectations, that they are focused on keeping the rules and not Christ.
Children who grow into teens and young adults who are so fearful of failure–so mired in perfectionism. And that is not a healthy place to be emotionally or spiritually.
Children who know they need Jesus intellectually, but practically are doing everything “right” and are “blessed” and so have trouble acknowledging their sin, turning in repentance to the Lord and leaning into Christ each day. (Not that the Lord allows us to stay in such a place!)
Children who become adults who do have a relationship with the Lord, but are struggling with living it out in ways that are not bound by legalism. (Again, not intended to be passed on by parents, but passed on nonetheless.) Again, with the sub-culture and the expectations placed upon a child–to the extent that the child is not free to be who God created him to be, but is instead focused upon fitting into certain molds.
And I want to be clear–none of the parents and families I’m thinking of were consciously aiming at these.
And neither do I think ANY Christian parent/wife sets out to create a legalistic family.
But I’ve seen it happen so repeatedly, that I disagree with the idea that the Pearls only bring out legalism that is already latent in a family. I think that instead, the Pearls layer their legalism under “folksy common sense” and appeal to families desires to be close and strong. . .
Link | October 9th, 2005 at 9:17 pm
HighlandJewel wrote,
Keer,
You’ve done such a wonderful job bringing the Pearls’ blatant errors to light, and have not backed down from your conclusions. I am so very proud of you for sticking to the truth and not allowing anyone to dissuade you.
If you feel your time reviewing CTBHHM is done, then set the book aside (or burn it, whichever appeals most to you) and be done with it. There are many ladies who appreciate your work, and in time, there will be families who are spared so many problems, because you spoke out. I have always had at least some minor concerns about the Pearls, but over time, as I saw what their “principles” were doing to the relationship between me and my son, I realized that something wasn’t right, and backed away from their teachings. Adam and I are getting along so much better now that I am free from that mess. When I discovered that original sin was not part of the Pearls’ doctrine, that sealed it for me. No more influence of theirs in my home!
Link | October 9th, 2005 at 10:08 pm
Spunky wrote,
Keer while all are offering their thougts my encouragement would be to pray and follow what God and your husband feel is HIS leading. God will give you strength for the task if that is what HE desires you to do. Trust an obey.
To the others, if there has been anything inappropriate on my blog or in my conduct I would as that you e-mail me and let me know. To the best of my abilities I have sought to honor God with my review an opininions. But I know that we all have blinders and it is sometimes takes others pointing them out for us to see them. Please let me know. You can get the e-mail on my blog. I don’t want to get spammed so I’m not leaving it here.
Let us also remember that God calls each of us to examine ourselves and to humbly submit to one another. The Pearls are not different and not above scrutiny. And a public book is subject to scrutiny both in content and doctrine. The first verse of Titus 2 is to teach sound doctrine. That is a qualification for both men and women. Debi Pearl holds all of us to a high standard of conduct as wives. She and her writing are not exempt from examiniation accordingly.
Link | October 10th, 2005 at 1:20 pm
clearing wrote,
Peeks in and gasps at the crowd!
::backs away slowly…..so as not to offend or discourage and smiles sweetly:::
Oh *foof*
The more I read about this book (which I did read many years ago) and the reviews revolving around it and the carefully constructed ‘nice’ discussions from self-restrained God fearing women, the more I see that it goes round and round in circles. Now the circles are circling back to converge with the previous circles. I think this may be or may become what we might call:
~futile argument~
I think (now even more than last week) that it is not important to
1. continue writing even more reviews
and/or
2. discuss the “already discussed to death” reviews, again.
But that’s only my opinion. If you do think it’s a good idea to finish the book, I would (if it were me doing the writing) move on very briskly and finish it before November, and limit the responses I’d make to other people’s comments. Just a suggestion.
XXX
Love you all.
::leaves without slamming the door:::
Link | October 10th, 2005 at 2:20 pm
Spunky wrote,
Clearing
You said,
The more I read about this book (which I did read many years ago
You must be confusing this book with Me? Obey Him? because Created to be His Help Meet has only been out for less than a year. So I’m not sure what book you might be referencing or the controvesy surrounding it. But his is a new publication just put out by Debi Pearl.
Spunky
Link | October 10th, 2005 at 2:54 pm
Spunky wrote,
Keer your a nut I left you one way and you come back totally different. I love this look alot.
Link | October 10th, 2005 at 3:22 pm
clearing wrote,
Hey!! You must be right spunky!! I read the other one then.
Thank you for clearing that up. I’m sure that’s why I didn’t remember a lot of it (ahem) and after reading the reviews written here I expect I won’t be buying CTBHHM.
Is it a similar vein to “ME, Obey Him?” I was a young Christian when I read that and it did help me with several issues.
So sorry if anything I said here was misconstrued then…I may have said something very off.. Please extend forgiveness if I led anyone astray.
Going back to trite subjects now…
With affection,
C
Link | October 10th, 2005 at 4:40 pm
razorbackmama wrote,
“I’m sure that’s why I didn’t remember a lot of it (ahem)”
ROFLOL!!!!!!!
You hoot!!!!!
Link | October 10th, 2005 at 4:50 pm
Spunky wrote,
There are similar in what they teach.(ie. encouraging submission, reverence, etc). And like you, I read Me? Obey Him? over 10 years ago. But the tone of Created to be His Help Meet was alot different. I’ll have to go back and look again before I comment too much more.
Link | October 10th, 2005 at 5:03 pm
Catez wrote,
Hi Keer and anyone who may actually read this. Took a look at my last comment and I can see the part in all caps looks pretty strong. Sorry - I didn’t mean it to look like shouting (but it might have to some). I was just tired of some stuff and was trying to be get to what I saw as the issue. So apologies if the all caps offended anyone. Thanks.
Link | October 12th, 2005 at 9:35 am
Revka wrote,
Wow! It certainly has been interesting reading! I think that overall you did a good job though at times I did think there was some nit-picking. Thanks for the links to the Pearls’ basic doctrine. I will definitely have to check it out. I can understand the doctrine that babies/children who do not understand the concept of sin will go to heaven if they die because even though they inherited Adam’s sinful nature God will not hold them accountable for what they do not understand, but I certainly DO NOT believe that we are born sinless/without a sin nature, nor do I believe that we as Christians will ever reach sinless perfection until we are in Heaven. Also, I missed the part in the book where there are clues that they believe the Gap Theory. Again, there is NO WAY I can agree with that doctrine. Thanks again for the info. I will be researching it for myself.
Link | July 9th, 2006 at 9:49 pm