Setting Children Up to Fail
 

On an old discussion on my blog about the Pearls, one of my critiques of their techiniques is how they set infants and children up for failure, and then swat them for it.

This is what I've said:


Someone recently replied with some thoughts which I believe are straight from TTUAC.


Before I answer with what I believe, I'd like to see what thoughts y'all have on this.

Re: Setting Children Up to Fail
 

I'm new to this, but it seems to me God gave Adam and Eve a boundry that was in their own best interest not to cross. He wasn't testing them. It was free will at work when they decided to blow off the limit placed on them and thier consequences were natural.

God didn't say, here's this tree and even though I know you don't have the impulse control or reasoning skills to resist eating from it I'm going to leave it here and smite you when you inevitably touch it - by the way it's really tasty and you know you want some

Re: Setting Children Up to Fail
 

Well, Adam and Eve were adults. That is a huge difference. If you put something tempting in front of a baby, he's not even going to understand what you mean when you tell him not to touch it. At least Adam and Eve understood what God meant.

Plus, we, as adults have to deal with tempting situations every day. I could say that the soda machine in church is setting me up for failure, but I'm an adult and I have much more impulse control than when I was a child.

Re: Setting Children Up to Fail
 

But a Pearl follower might say that God simply putting the tree there in the first place was setting up for failure. An atheist I know IRL has brought up the same argument to me. She explained that she would not leave a freshly baked batch of brownies in front of her dh and older children, as well as the younger, b/c even though they have the impulse control not to eat it, it would not be fair to knowingly and purposefully place tempting things in front of people. She says it would be totally wrong of God to needlessly test like that. I don't know what to say to her, so I'm :popcorn

Re: Setting Children Up to Fail
 

I don't know, I suppose God putting the tree there meant that Adam and Eve had free will. They weren't robots and they weren't pets. If Adam and Eve were going to obey, it would be out of love and respect. It would be a relationship, ykwim?

Re: Setting Children Up to Fail
 

:popcorn

Re: Setting Children Up to Fail
 

My understanding of the story is that the tree was just another tree to Adam & Eve, albeit a tree that would kill them if they ate it (as far as they knew). It was Satan who tempted Eve to eat of the tree. She wouldn't have done it if it weren't for the seduction of Satan. I'm not holding Eve blameless, mind you. I'm only saying that, speaking as a woman who has many times given in to temptation & seduction :blush , there are things a human being will do when tempted that they wouldn't even have considered previously if the subject had not been brought up & shoved in their face.

In my opinion, following the Pearl's example of deliberately putting tempting items in an infant's path is putting the parent in the role of Satan.

Re: Setting Children Up to Fail
 

:yes :yes :popcorn

Re: Setting Children Up to Fail
 

I haven't read all the replies but something jumped out to me. Adam and Eve sinned in the garden. Whether they were set up to fail or not ;)
Is a baby sinning by reaching for a toy, or crawling off of a blanket? It seems to me the parents are setting themselves up to define sin as whatever they don't like and creating a crime where there is none :think

A baby is exploring, as he was designed to do. Exploring the worls around you is not sin.

Re: Setting Children Up to Fail
 

A more accurate analogy would be fresh baked brownies among a 'garden' of other delicious deserts - it wasn't the only tree, the only good looking thing there to eat.

I agree it has to do with giving free will and having something as a boundry.

I also agree that when Eve said 'God has told us not to eat that' she is showing they have clear understanding of the situation, whereas an infact is designed to investigate their surroundings and can not understand why they can't have something.

The Bible also tells us not to 'provoke our children to wrath' - Pearl seems to create a lot of 'wrath' in children that he then advocates beating out of them.

Re: Setting Children Up to Fail
 

Elizabeth, I am going to move my friends response and questions to IF. :) Will you join, please? :hug

Re: Setting Children Up to Fail
 

I deal with this every week. This is what I think. . . .1. Adam and Eve were adults, and they could make an informed choice. 2. God put the tree in the Garden before Adam (and Eve) was even made. It was just a location, and not put there for temptation. 3. Adam and Eve had *all* those other trees to eat from, so it wasn't like they would be shortchanged in anything. The tree was not put in the garden by itself (like the Pearls would the toy, for instance).

I have more, but I'm being distracted. . .

Re: Setting Children Up to Fail
 

I'm just stretching here, but would it have even been possible to create beings with free wills as we have and not allow them to be exposed to choices? Meaning, the tree of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life were not "artificial" things that God came up with just to tempt Adam and Eve. There *is* good and evil, there *is* life and death. My understanding is that angels have free will, though more limited than humans, and there are still angels in heaven who worship God, and fallen angels in a state of rebellion against God who are his enemies. So Adam & Eve's situation really was NOT an artificial construction designed to tempt them, it was a reality.... and I believe that it is possible that they could have made a different decision, but they didn't. God told them the truth, what they could have, and provided many good things for them in abundance. Satan decieved them. But it wasn't *setting them up to fail* at all as the Pearl's construct it.

The Pearls do not believe in original sin... I'm not even sure if they would believe that babies would sin. :scratch They really view it as "training".

Re: Setting Children Up to Fail
 

:banghead

It's not even a valid argument.

I have to go eat lunch with my family right this second, so I'll be back.

TM, do you have _Chosen by God_? If so, the second chapter gives some good talking points about what happened in the Garden of Eden. It wasn't God tempting Adam and Eve. It's nothing like a baby on a blanket, for so many reasons!

Re: Setting Children Up to Fail
 

Havent read the replies yet but Adam and Eve weren't set up to fail IMHO. God didn't pick there favorite things and dangle them from tree branches saying over here over here he simpily set a boundry. As a homemaker I bring lots of things into this home that can be looked at as tempting to a to toddler and are innappropite even dangerous for her, but I'm not setting her up to fail. There just things that we need to have.
What Michel does is play the role of the serpent (Satin) he says look at what I have over here come on over I dare you to take it... And that is setting his kids up to fail.

Deanna

Re: Setting Children Up to Fail
 

I answered the other thread as well. . . . . .

To 'test' someone, to 'try' them, one must know both sides of the issue. . .good or bad. For Adam and Eve, everything was 'good', so far. It is like Paul writes in the NT. . . without knowledge of the law, there is no acknowledgement (or knowledge) of sin.

The tree just *was*. It was put there before Adam and Eve were even created.

Re: Setting Children Up to Fail
 

I'm in agreement with the other posters here, and will sum up the major points made:

1. Adam and Eve were adults, and had free will to choose. This is different from a baby, who does not know any better and is exploring his or her little world.

2. God gave them many trees from which to eat, and gave them a simple boundary of not eating from ONE tree only. What the Pearls do is set the ONE item they don't want the baby to have in front of them and essentially taunt them into reaching for it, and then punish the poor thing for essentially 'obeying' the parent.:hunh :banghead

3. God did not taunt Adam and Eve with the fruit from the tree -- he did not have the tree drop the fruit everywhere for them to pick up and he did not place the fruit just from that tree in front of them for a meal.

4. Adam and Eve went to the tree, with help only from Satan, not God. Adam and Eve knew they were not supposed to eat from the tree, but they chose to anyway. A baby does not understand what the parent is expecting of them when the parent places a 'forbidden' object in front of them. God set the clear boundary up front and Adam and Eve understood right away. A baby does not.

Re: Setting Children Up to Fail
 

The Bible tells us that Eve was deceived. My understanding is that, up until she started listening to Satan, the tree wasn't that big an issue - the tree, by itself, wasn't the temptation. Satan used the tree to create a temptation. Does that make sense? The tree wasn't tempting them - the temptation was more about the fact that Eve decided to trust Satan, not God. The temptation was more about disobeying God than about the appeal of the tree - apparently, the tree wasn't all that appealing when they considered it dangerous. :P IIRC, only after Eve believes Satan and decides the tree is good for food is the tree "pleasant to [her] eyes."

Adam quite likely knew better, but he stood back until Eve acted as guinea pig; when she didn't show any immediate ill effect he gave the fruit a try.

Sheryl

Re: Setting Children Up to Fail
 

So essentially, they were testing God.... :think

Re: Setting Children Up to Fail
 

Well, the Bible says that Eve was deceived, and that Adam was responsible for the first sin. So I wonder if Eve believed Satan and had less reason to know better. She misrepresents what God said - "can't touch" - and some commentators believe Adam told her what God had said rather than her hearing it first hand, so since Adam's right there and could have corrected the snake or otherwise challenged him, but Adam didn't, maybe Eve was testing Adam's word more than God's. :shrug

Some commentators argue that Adam is responsible because he wasn't deceived, but he didn't defend God when the snake spoke, either. Perhaps it could be argued that while Eve was decieved - confused - Adam set himself up as God's judge when he should have been God's defender. Or Eve's defender, for that matter - if Satan did not deceive Adam, then Adam knew the tree was most likely deadly, yet he let Eve eat first. If Eve had died, Adam might have been the first to say, "Am I my brother's keeper?" ;) The Bible consistently identifys Adam as the first sinner, so the first sin was not the actual eating of the fruit.

Sheryl

Re: Setting Children Up to Fail
 

Many good thoughts. Looks to me like everyone's got it right here, the biblical account has God informing Adam of the boundary and the danger to him should he cross it. It is the serpent who does the tempting. Presumably one would not want to follow in THAT particular example if it's avoidable. I'm scratching my head and would love to hear the response to this, because it seems so obvious to me!

In case it hasn't been mentioned yet, I'll toss this thought out: I don't think we're supposed to draw a discipline technique from the example of God putting a special tree in the Garden, any more than we should get a "cry it out" principle from God leaving Jesus on the cross. These events are unique, special, and radiant with God's inscrutable purposes. (Why didn't He intervene in the garden when His people were going to get themselves into horrible trouble? Why didn't He intervene when Jesus was on the cross? Is there a connection?)

For your average Christian parent, there's other material in the Bible to guide us in how we're to treat people who are weaker or have less understanding than we have about things that could be a danger to them.

Re: Setting Children Up to Fail
 

:clap

Re: Setting Children Up to Fail
 

Kathy,

You've touched on something that I have been pondering lately. Not sure my thoughts are coherent enough to express, but I'll try:

I think that there is a significant difference between a human seeking to parent "after" God and a human attempting to parent AS God.

When I think of the first, I imagine thoughtfully and prayerfully drawing on God's example as a parent where it is applicable to humans, while also pursuing Christ-likeness and striving for the other general principles of Christian behavior taught throughout God's Word. Also worth noting: God does not only picture Himself as a parent figure, but as a brother.. a friend... a shepherd... a king... a judge, etc. The "Father" analogy we tend to become so fixated is only one small aspect of who God is, and is one of many "pictures" that He uses in an attempt to portray Himself to us better. We aren't necessarily invited to assume all of the roles God the Father plays, but we ARE exhorted to be like Christ.

The second, I believe, begins to happen when parents try to assume an inappropriate amount of control over their children.. when they set themselves up as judge, jury, and executioner (figuratively speaking--the person who administers the sentence)... when they assume to know how their children think and feel at every turn without seeking out or allowing open communication, when they try to teach their children about God's laws and the wages of sin by creating and defining their own laws, sins, and wages. The power of being god-like in anyone's eyes is corrupting when that power it inserted into into the life and heart of someone who is, in fact, NOT God.

Re: Setting Children Up to Fail
 

:clap :clap :clap :clap :clap :amen

Re: Setting Children Up to Fail
 

Right if there were no option to choose to fall into temptation and to eat the fruit then there would be no challanger of the "free will" to choose to follow God and therefore would it really exist?

Re: Setting Children Up to Fail
 

What a great discussion. :tu Thank you all for your thought-provoking posts. :) I just wanted to add one more thing. We don't and cannot eliminate ALL the temptations that our children/babies have. Even if we try to eliminate as many as possible, there are always going to be a few things that we cannot remove. God only put one "temptation" (if that's what you want to call the tree) in the garden full of other good choices. The Pearls want us to put one temptation in front of our babies (with no other appealing alternatives). I specifically remember reading his description of how he got his children to learn the word "hot." :sick2 :mad

Re: Setting Children Up to Fail
 

:yes

Also . . . God created the Garden and *then* He created Adam and put him in the Garden. The Tree wasn't put there as a temptation--it was already there. The only way a valid comparison could be made is if something is in the room that has always been there and you are teaching the child to not touch it. But, even then, the issue with Adam and Eve wasn't about touching something mom and dad said to not touch--it was about two adults disobeying God.

Re: Setting Children Up to Fail
 

I pulled out this book while cleaning and just happened to flip it open to the page where he discusses this very thing. I wasn't even looking for it. So I went ahead and started reading.... :shifty page 4 of the book.

To put this in context... the previous 2 paragraphs are entitled "Training, Not Discipline" and "Training Not to Touch." He states flat out that the focus is not on having godly children, but on having children who instantly, unquestioningly obey... also that he is not talking about responding to an unacceptable behavior, but conditioning for the purpose of controlling future behavior. (yes, he uses the word "condition")

The heading of the relevant paragraph is "Plant Your Tree in the Midst of the Garden" and it starts off "When God wanted to 'train' His first two children not to touch.."

I had to stop there. :scratch :hunh Huh? God was not attempting to "train" Adam and Eve with the tree. He wasn't seeking to teach them unquestioning obedience by means of cause-and-effect pain, nor was He trying to condition them in any way. He didn't zap them every time they touched the tree, and then continue purposefully exposing them to it so they would learn to co-exist with it while also restraining their desire to touch. That wasn't the point at all.

He simply set a boundary... made a rule/law. When Adam and Even violated it, they experienced the natural consequences of their actions (knowledge of good/evil, and the wages of sin--that being death--and even that was offset by God's gracious provision) and they were then promptly denied proximity to that particular "no-no." The scenario described in the Bible is not even remotely similar to the comparison M. Pearl draws from it. :shrug

I also found it bit illogical that he places so much emphasis on the fact that God placed the tree "in the midst" of the garden. True, the primary defintion of the word midst is "middle" but midst also means "among." Either way... he takes that phrase and leaps to the conclusion that "they would be exposed to its temptation more often." We have no idea which parts of the garden A&E frequented... so it's irrelevant to attach such importance to the tree's location. :shrug The fact that he asserts God purposefully designed it's location so as to be MORE tempting to them is downright contrary to what we are taught about the nature of God in other parts of the Bible.

Also, to support what some previous posters have said... A&E were mature, reasoning adults--fully capable of understanding the instruction God had given them. Eve's initial response clearly shows that--even prior to her acquisition of "the knowledge of good and evil," she definitely understood the instruction and knew the tree was off-limits.

Pearl makes it crystal clear in pages 2-4 that he is talking about the behavoristic "training" of a child who is not yet mature and reasoning... who does not clearly understand the boundary.

"Training does not necessarily require that the trainee be capable of reason; even mice and rats can be trained to respond to stimuli."
He repeatedly reminds the reader that this is NOT discipline (response to an unacceptable behavior), but "training" ("conditioning of the child's mind before the crisis arises") He even describes what the child's reaction might look like.

"... they will pause, look at you in wonder [when you say no].... " (Then, after you repeat your instruction and accompany it with a switch...) "They will again pull back their hand and consider the relationship between the object, their desire, the command, and the little reinforcing pain." This is a description of a child learning what "no" means by way of repeated, purposefully-inflicted pain.. The Bible's account of the scene b/t the snake and Adam/Eve is a description of two adults who already understand what "no" means being deceived and persuaded into willful disobedience.

He is simply taking a detail which happens to be in scripture and grossly misrepresenting it's context and application in order to support his belief in behavoristic child-rearing.

Edited for grammar and to add scripture references.

Re: Setting Children Up to Fail
 

Very very well put!!! :tu

Re: Setting Children Up to Fail
 

Don't keep us in suspense too long, TulipMama! ;) :lol