Ezzo Parenting Debate

A Statement Regarding Gary Ezzo and Growing Families International

I got this off a website that is now not available.

A Statement Regarding Gary Ezzo and Growing Families International

by the Elders of Grace Community Church

   This statement was unanimously affirmed by the
                   board of elders
  of Grace Community Church on 16 October 1997. 

     We have received a flood of inquiries about our stance
     with regard to Gary Ezzo and Growing Families
     International (GFI). What follows is a brief summary of
     why Grace Community Church is no longer affiliated in
     any way with that ministry. We as elders cannot endorse
     GFI until these matters are resolved, and we wish to
     make our position clear. We have delayed making a
     public statement as long as we held out hope that these
     concerns might be resolved privately. Unfortunately, that
     no longer appears possible. We fully realize that many
     people worldwide have assumed GFI enjoys our full
     support. Literally dozens of people each week ask for
     clarification of our position relative to GFI. Therefore
     we believe this public statement of our concerns is
     warranted--and even somewhat overdue.

     It is still our earnest prayer, however, that these things
     may ultimately be resolved in a way that honors the
     Lord and is in harmony with His Word:

At an elders' meeting in the Spring of 1993, the elders of Grace Church asked Gary Ezzo to be more accountable to them--particularly with regard to the content of his teaching and the amount of time he was spending in GFI ministries beyond the purview of his responsibilities as a pastor.

Soon afterward, in June 1993, Gary announced he was resigning from the pastoral staff but planned to continue serving as a lay elder, keeping Grace Community Church as the base of GFI ministries. The reason he gave for resigning from the church staff was that GFI now demanded his full-time involvement.

The elders nonetheless urged Gary to follow through with his commitment to be more accountable, especially with regard to the content of his teaching. Gary promised to do so.

The pastoral staff began a review of Gary's published and taped material, and met as a group with Gary in mid-1995 to outline several concerns about the doctrinal and biblical content of GFI materials. (Some of those same concerns are given below.) Gary seemed to receive the criticism well and in a good spirit. He explained and clarified several points, and promised to make changes in his material to alleviate everyone's concerns.

However, in the weeks immediately following the meeting, Gary wrote letters to some of the pastors who had raised criticisms. He characterized their concerns as petty and personal, and indicated he believed the staff's criticism was driven by one or two people's personal agendas. He repeated those allegations in private conversations with church members.

The changes discussed in that meeting were never submitted to the pastoral staff. Instead, Gary resigned as an elder and withdrew from Grace Church completely. Ultimately several of his closest followers left the church as well.

Here is an outline summary of some of the more serious concerns Grace Church's pastors and elders have raised about GFI and its teachings:

1. Confusion between biblical standards and matters of personal preference. The best-known example of this is the GFI emphasis on infant feeding schedules, combined with GFI's zealous opposition to demand feeding by nursing mothers. Portraying scheduled feeding as the true biblical practice, GFI strongly implies that demand feeding should be regarded as an unbiblical, humanistic--even sinful--approach to caring for infants. As elders, we see no biblical basis whatsoever for GFI's dogmatism on this issue. While not opposing scheduled feeding, we would caution young mothers not to adopt any system of parenting that is so rigid that it requires them to quell the God-given maternal impulse (cf. Isa. 66:10-13).

Other examples where matters of personal preference are presented as if they had biblical authority: GFI parents are taught that sling-type baby carriers are too child- centered and therefore incompatible with biblical parenting. GFI curriculum also teaches that mothers should not rock their babies to sleep; that they should not comfort or feed crying infants in the parents' bed--and especially that moms should never sleep next to their babies. Portions of the material seem to place an undue stress on stifling the mother's desire to comfort her children. For example, Matthew 27:46 is used to justify the teaching that mothers should refuse to attend to crying infants who have already been fed, changed, and had their basic needs met. Gary Ezzo writes, "Praise God that the Father did not intervene when His son cried out on the cross" (Preparation for Parenting, p.122).

We find throughout the GFI material a blurring of the line between that which is truly biblical, and simple matters of preference.

2. A lack of clarity on certain fundamental doctrinal issues. In particular, GFI materials tend to be unclear on the issues of original sin and human depravity.

For example, in tape 12 of the "Growing Kids God's Way" tape series, Gary Ezzo says: "It is not the will of the child that is corrupt but the nature that drives the will. It is the flesh that is corrupt." "The will itself is morally neutral." "The will itself is not corrupt, the flesh is corrupt. The will is morally neutral."

However, Scripture clearly portrays our sinful nature as something that holds the unregenerate will in utter bondage (John 8:34, 44; Rom. 6:20). Nothing in Scripture suggests that the human will is morally neutral; rather Scripture teaches that the will of the sinner is bent inexorably toward sin, enslaved to various lusts (Rom. 8:7-8; Titus 3:3). Every faculty of the sinner's heart is corrupted by sin (cf. Gen. 6:5)--and particularly the will. That is the whole point of the doctrine often labeled "total depravity," which we affirm.

The notion that the human will is neutral is the very foundation of Pelagianism, a heresy that dates back to the Fifth Century. We do not believe Gary intends to teach Pelagianism. He has expressly stated his belief that children are born with a sin nature. (Even the statement above seems to hinge on Gary's assertion that "the nature . . . drives the will"--i.e., if the nature is corrupt, the will tends to make sinful choices. But this still stops short of affirming what Scripture does: that the sinner's will is in absolute bondage to sin.)

Again, we do not suggest that Gary means to deny the utter depravity of the sinner. But by over-classifying human faculties and declaring the will "morally neutral," he has left room for serious misunderstanding on the issue. A similar example is found in the GFI book Preparation for Parenting, where parents are told that the child's conscience at birth is a "clean slate"; and then a footnote differentiates between the "higher" and "lower" conscience. All of this seems needlessly to confuse the biblical stress on the utter corruption of the human heart and all its faculties (Jer. 17:9)--even from infancy: "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies" (Ps. 58:3).

3. Insufficient attention to the child's need for regeneration. Potential confusion on the human-depravity issue is compounded by the weight of emphasis given to moral indoctrination, compared to the relatively meager stress on the child's need for a divinely-renewed heart. Parents are repeatedly told that the goal of parenting is to raise a "morally responsible child"; and that they can "restrain the natural corruption by instilling into the child the self-disciplines of life" (Preparation for Parenting, p. 22). The impression is left with many parents that in training a well-mannered and morally innocent child, they have raised their child "God's way."

To be clear, our complaint is not that GFI material denies or omits the doctrine of regeneration. Statements are scattered throughout various GFI publications that do mention the child's need of conversion. But the truths of the gospel and the necessity of divine grace are by no means the essential heart of GFI's instruction to parents. Gary himself once reported in an elders' meeting that GFI material has found a warm reception among Mormons and other non-evangelicals. This would hardly be possible if the truths of the gospel received sufficient emphasis in the curriculum.

4. A tendency to isolationism. GFI parents tend to insulate their children from other children--including Christian children--who are not part of the GFI "community" (i.e., those not indoctrinated in GFI principles). GFI parents have been known to sever all relationships with non-GFI families. To some degree, GFI teaching is directly responsible for encouraging this attitude.

While still a pastor at Grace Church, Gary Ezzo helped found a private "Community School," where children could be enrolled only by personal invitation. Of course, only GFI parents were asked to enroll their children. Some were even encouraged to withdraw their children from Grace Church's own Christian school, and move them instead to the Community School.

Several GFI-trained parents have kept their children from participating in organized church youth activities in order to avoid exposing their children to others not "in the community." Some GFI parents have objected because non-Christian young people are welcome to attend youth- group activities, and because Christian young people in the youth group have been encouraged to befriend and evangelize non-Christians in their schools and neighborhoods.

GFI material does not caution against, but rather defends, that type of isolationism. In fact, Gary Ezzo teaches that to do otherwise could irreparably damage the "moral innocence" of children.

All of those are reasons why GFI materials are no longer available from Grace Community Church. One additional concern has to do with how Gary Ezzo has responded to criticism.

In several instances, Gary Ezzo has declined to listen to concerns from essentially friendly critics--including fellow elders, pastors, and even co-workers in the GFI ministries. His responses to the elders of Grace Church have reflected a repeated tendency to avoid accountability. For example, when the Community School was started, elders from Grace Church's School Council asked for a meeting with Gary to share some concerns about his involvement with the Community School. Gary refused to meet with them. Later, when asked about the Community School in a full elders' meeting, Gary told the elders he had no direct involvement with the Community School. But in fact, he was serving on the School's board of directors. In at least one case he assured a group of concerned elders that he would seek resolution of a long- standing conflict--then later refused to do so. His departure from Grace Church left a disturbing number of conflicts unresolved and concerns unaddressed.

At the same time, Gary has been known to respond with exaggerated and even false accusations against his critics. For example, just before he withdrew permanently from Grace Church, Gary sent an e-mail message to a Grace to You donor in the Midwest. In the message, Gary claimed that several staff members of the church had "gone amillennial in their eschatology"; that attendance at the church had dwindled so that church services were largely empty; and that Lance Quinn (Senior Associate Pastor) had "walked out" on John MacArthur--implying that Lance had left the church staff under less than positive circumstances. (Of course, not one of those accusations is remotely true.) Gary asked the donor to pray that the church would "close out its remaining years with dignity."

Our choice would have been to deal with all these things privately, and that has been the reason for our long silence until now. We consider it profoundly unfortunate that we must issue a public statement such as this. But our efforts to address these concerns privately have been rebuffed or disregarded. Sadly, that has made this formal statement necessary.

Again, our prayer is that all these matters will be resolved to the glory of Christ.

The Elders of Grace Community Church

THAT is the statement that woke me up. Thanks for reprinting it (nt)

Your Welcome nt

Proverbs 18:17

I don't visit here much but want you to remember Proverbs 18:17 "The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him."

You should read the other side of the story from GFI:

The following text is a copy of the response GFI made to Grace Church's statement. It was available on their website and it says that their statement "may be duplicated and distributed at will, only in its entirety." Thus, this is the very very long statement. Happy reading.

In Response To:

Grace Community Church "Statement" Regarding the Ezzos and Growing Families International -- Part Two (11/11/97)

The Grace Elders' "statement" was finalized by Phillip R. Johnson, Executive Director, Grace To You Ministries on 10/16/97. According to Mr. Johnson's correspondence with GFI, the entire statement was reviewed and approved by John MacArthur before it was presented to the elders at Grace Church. It then was subsequently approved for distribution by the Board of Elders on 10/16/97.

The Ezzo's ministry of helping parents to be faithful and true to God in their duty of raising their children started at Grace Community Church in 1985, and continued through the Spring of 1996. In June of 1996, the Ezzos left Grace Church quietly and as graciously as possible. Since that time they have been content to carry on their ministry while avoiding public criticism of any other ministry.

Now eighteen months later, the Grace elder board felt it necessary to release a statement of non endorsement concerning Growing Families International. The Ezzos were stunned to read the content and focus of Grace's statement. In the second paragraph Phil Johnson wrote: "We have delayed making a public statement as long as we held out hope that these concerns might be resolved privately. Unfortunately, that no longer appears possible."

This statement makes it sound as if the Grace elders were in active pursuit of the Ezzos and that the only reason they "went public" was because the Ezzos failed to respond to their concerns. At the end of the statement, Phil Johnson wrote that, "our efforts to address these concerns privately have been rebuffed or disregarded, . . ."

The veracity of that concern rises or falls on the question of whether or not the elders were actively pursuing Gary over their supposed concerns with his teaching resources. Consider this fact, which is undisputed, over the previous thirty months not one member of John's staff or elder board has pursued the Ezzos on any church-related issues, let alone a single concern found within the Grace statement. One only needs to ask Grace elders and pastors one obvious question to assess the validity of the entire document: "Have you personally made contact with the Ezzos in the last thirty months regarding any of the charges found in the Grace statement?"

If the answer is "no," then how can the "statement" assert that the Ezzos were "pursued" and that all attempts made were "rebuffed?" If there were no contacts, no meetings, no phone calls, or letters of concern, then on what exactly did the elders unanimously vote? (If any elder or staff pastor has a different recollection, then it would be the right thing for him to step forward with his documentation: letters, memos, phone records, dates, and time of meetings.)

Many have asked over the last few weeks: How could men who express that they have no greater concern than to bring honor to their Lord and His Word write and act in such a manner against a ministry partner? The Ezzos have no answer to that question. It is a question for which Grace leadership alone must respond to and stand accountable to the Lord. The Ezzos are certain, however, that leaders are held to a "stricter judgment," (Ja. 3.1) and that leaders must both teach and live truth (1 Tim. 4.16). Gary invites the wider community of Christianity to hold both GFI and Grace to a biblical standard in these matters.

If Grace's statement aligns with the facts, then why has no member of John's staff or any of his elders pursued the Ezzos according to Galatians 6:1? "Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted."

There are two very good reasons why the Ezzos have not been pursued. First, according to John MacArthur, there was nothing to pursue. This fact is made clear by the number times John has gone on record over many months in statements he made to many people that he has "no problem with Gary's theology." That means that Grace's recent statement is not only a new position which they have not heretofore communicated to Gary and GFI, it is also a position which stands in stark contrast to what John has communicated to Gary and Anne Marie in the past. Consider for example, one letter which John wrote to the Ezzos on July 18, 1995:

1. "We all agree on the doctrinal statement of Grace Community Church. I know you are honestly committed to that statement as expressed in What We Teach so in my mind we're not dealing with issues of foundational doctrine. I don't question your theology."

2. "We're not dealing with an issue of motive. Everyone wants to serve the Lord as best they can and be as true to the Word as possible."

3. "What we're dealing with is a difference in understanding some applications of biblical truth, differences in terminology, a certain conflict over what is biblical and what is non biblical (preferential)."

Since there were no problems with Gary's theology or motives, John concluded the staff problems with the GFI materials were either issues of emphasis or matters of preference. (MacArthur letter attached -- 1.1.)

Second, the reason there was no pursuit of the Ezzos was because as it is clearly stated by John in his July 18, 1995 letter, he personally called a halt to all further correspondence regarding this matter. He stated that further writing would constitute an unfair burden on the Ezzos. His desire was to "put these things to rest." The acceptance of John's wishes is verified by the fact that Grace staff and elders made no contact with Gary from that time forward. That in turn is why the charge of "rebuffing and disregarding" is not merely untrue, it is impossible.

As a footnote, in the July 18, 1995 letter, John shared in a non-specific way, that he was grieved about unkind statements, innuendos, and sarcasm surrounding this issue. After reading that statement, Gary immediately sent a letter to Stuart Scott seeking forgiveness if any part of his letter sounded as John described. (Scott letter attached to MacArthur letter -- 1.2).

From that time on, the only other correspondence with Grace staff was the congenial conversations between Stuart Scott and Gary Ezzo over the wording of the Grace Church/ GFI response, approved by John MacArthur and the elders on 10/31/95, and made available to the public in November, 1995.

According to John and his staff, that first official statement put out by Grace Church was the final resolution of the entire matter. It was

entitled: Transition of Family Ministry at Grace Community Church and was

If the elders were not pursuing Gary, then how could it now be true that they have "given up hope?" If John told Gary that he had no problem with Gary's theology, then how could it now be true that Gary should be charged with a lack of accountability in his teaching? If John wrote Gary that there were to be no further discussions or correspondence on the matter of Gary's life and ministry, then how could it now be true that Gary is guilty of "rebuffing and disregarding" Grace's leadership?

Does the doctrine of the local church afford Grace Church the biblical right to send out a statement of non-endorsement regarding another ministry? The Ezzos believe the answer is a resounding "Yes." But on the other hand, does that doctrine give Grace Church the freedom to accuse a person of wrong without first going to that person, or if not that person, at least making some effort to contact his or her spiritual leaders? Absolutely not. And yet that is exactly what was done with the Grace "statement." All readers of Grace's statement clearly see that it goes beyond the issue of endorsement and beyond the issue of making observations about the content of a small sampling of Gary's teaching resources.

If the statement stopped at those two things, most of the Body of Christ would have agreed that Grace is within their biblical bounds. However, by making public their concerns about Gary's character, Grace's elders ignored the compelling Scriptural process and the God-given authority of Gary's elders.

Gary wants nothing more than to honor the Lord by teaching and leading in ways which are completely faithful to the Bible. Gary is willing and ready to participate in any biblical, God honoring process to advance reconciliation and unity in the Body of Christ. Though the Grace elders have not up to this point taken those steps, (likely because John MacArthur has said to his staff and to Gary and his staff, that the matter "was put to rest"), Gary invites them to pursue a biblical course by doing what any group of elders should do if they are desirous of dealing with conflict in harmony to the Word of God.

God has a way of sorting these things out. The Ezzos will wait and see how He does it and meanwhile get on with their ministry.

                          * * * * * * * * * * * *

The Ezzos realize that some of their readers would like more specifics about the Grace Statement. For those who need that information, attached is a fifteen point detailed response. Each paragraph in the "statement" has been numbered, starting with the first sentence: "This statement was unanimously affirmed . . ." The Ezzos will refer to each paragraph by number when quoting from it and then respond to each quoted statement.

                       STATEMENT REVIEW AND RESPONSE

The first one to plead his cause seems right. Until his neighbor comes and examines him. Proverbs 18:17

STATEMENT ONE (Paragraph One) "This statement was unanimously affirmed . . ."

RESPONSE Many will read that statement and assume that all Grace Church elders were present when the discussion and vote occurred. Accordingly, many will assume that all the elders had equal exposure and knowledge of the facts presented to the board. Having been on the Board of Elders at GCC for eleven years, Gary realizes that neither of those assumptions would be safe ones to make. The phrase, "unanimously affirmed" does not mean all the elders were in attendance nor does it mean consensus on the basis of similar levels of knowledge. These details are significant because one could easily interpret the phrase "unanimously affirmed" to mean something that it does not -- that all were in agreement.

STATEMENT TWO (Paragraph Two) "We have delayed making a public statement as long as we held out hope that these concerns might be resolved privately. Unfortunately, that no longer appears possible."

RESPONSE GCC had already released two public responses: The first was dated 10/30/95, the second was dated 4/17/97.

STATEMENT THREE (Paragraph Four) "At an elders' meeting in the Spring of 1993, the elders of Grace Church asked Gary Ezzo to be more accountable to them -- particularly with regard to the content of his teaching and the amount of time he was spending in GFI ministries beyond the purview of his responsibility as a pastor."

RESPONSE Indeed, the meeting of Spring, 1993, took place. However, at least two elders present distinctly remember that the meeting had nothing to do with the content of Gary's teaching resources. In addition, a concern of this magnitude would likely have shown up in the minutes of that elder meeting. It did not -- not the original minutes. It is true that a conversation regarding how much time GFI was requiring of Gary took place in that meeting. Later, that conversation provided the basis for his resignation, because Gary wanted to stay above reproach regarding his time and dual involvement with GCC and GFI.

STATEMENT FOUR (Paragraph Seven) "The pastoral staff began a review of Gary's published and taped material, and met as a group with Gary in mid-1995, to outline several concerns about the doctrinal and biblical content of GFI materials."

RESPONSE There were no meetings in mid-1995, Spring 1995, or Fall of 1995. Phil Johnson knew this before writing his statement, because he was given a detailed summary of all the events in a letter from Gary dated August 22, 1995. If meetings did occur, then Gary would love to see some verifying records. But they didn't occur. By midsummer 1995, the matter was officially "put at rest" by John MacArthur in his July 18, 1995 letter.

For the record, it is necessary to back up to Gary and John's first meeting on January 3, 1995. That is when John asked if Gary would make himself available to the staff to answer any questions they might have about his material. John wanted to get the matter settled and so did Gary. At John's request and GFI's expense, Gary provided every staff person with all GFI materials, including tapes.

On January 31, 1995, Gary met with John and his staff at 2:00 p.m. in room 271 at Grace Church. John led that meeting and opened it, noting that a few staff members had come to him about concerns with Gary's teaching resources. It was in that meeting that Gary expressed his disappointment that the staff went to John rather than coming to him. By the end of the hour, very few concerns over the material content were voiced, and none were voiced over any of the GFI curriculum used at Grace Church.

In that meeting, one pastor was concerned over the use of the word "moral" in the On Becoming Babywise book. Another was concerned that On Becoming Babywise was pre-evangelistic and "seeker sensitive," a method of evangelism that Grace does not endorse. A recently hired associate pastor thought it would be a good idea to add an appendix on child evangelism in the back of Growing Kids God's Way. (Gary thought that was a good idea for a future edition.)

Another associate pastor went through a checklist of his suggestions for the childbirth manual, Birth By Design. Gary asked that associate pastor to write down his suggestions and send them to him. Since Gary did not write the childbirth manual, nor interact at a deep level with its content, Gary was eager to see what the concerns were. That associate pastor agreed to do as Gary requested. However, rather than forwarding his suggestions to Gary, a couple months later the associate pastor sent twelve pages of suggested changes to the childbirth educators.

Out of the January 31, 1995, meeting came four letters from Grace staff pastors. One was a non-GFI related letter addressed to the childbirth ministry, dated March 16, 1995, mentioned in the paragraph above. Of the other three letters, only two required comprehensive responses. The first was from Associate Pastor Stuart Scott. It was received at the end of March, two months after the one-hour meeting in January. The second letter was received at the end of April from Associate Pastor Kent Keller who led the Junior High Ministry at that time.

Detailed responses were prepared by Gary for both letters and mailed in July, 1995. Following Gary's responses to those two associate pastors, came John MacArthur's July 18, 1995, letter. Gary would have preferred to have Associate Pastor Scott and Associate Pastor Keller answer the points of his response letter. For these were the matters left unresolved. However, out of a desire to follow John's wishes, Gary was willing to forego any further meetings, discussion, or correspondence. Gary felt that was the right thing to do given the fact that John had told Gary that the matter was over. As a result, communications ceased between Gary and Grace associate pastors on all matters. Never once from that point forward were any concerns ever brought to Gary until the Grace Church "statement" was released a couple of weeks ago.

STATEMENT FIVE (Paragraph Seven) "He explained and clarified several points, and promised to make changes in his material to alleviate everyone's concerns."

RESPONSE There were no promises made because, as noted above, there were no doctrinal concerns tied to the core GFI curriculum. The minor concerns discussed had to do with a childbirth manual and many of those changes were readied for the next printing.

STATEMENT SIX (Paragraph Eight) ". . . in the weeks immediately following the meeting, Gary wrote letters to some of the pastors who had raised criticisms."

RESPONSE This is not entirely accurate. The only letters written were the two response letters mentioned above. See attachment three to review the chronological order of events.

STATEMENT SEVEN (Paragraph Eight) ". . . Gary wrote letters to some of the pastors who had raised criticisms. He characterized their concerns as petty and personal, and indicated he believed the staff's criticism was driven by one or two people's personal agendas."

RESPONSE It is very difficult to know how to, or even whether to respond to hearsay. "Petty," "personal," and "agendas" are not words used in any of Ezzo's responses. Gary's detailed response to Associate Pastor Scott and Associate Pastor Keller demonstrated the seriousness in which he took their concerns.

Many of the examples used in the childbirth letter were lacking substance. Some examples included the use of the words "stress," "emotions," and "Postpartum blues." One of the associate pastors wrote: "There is nothing biblical to suggest that Christian women experience postpartum blues." He said "the Bible clearly speaks to these issues" (meaning any type of depression after birth is a sin issue not a chemical one). In relationship to labor, the childbirth educator's wrote, "knowledge of relaxation techniques and their proper use will be helpful." To this one associate pastor wrote, "These are not essential biblically-based principles. We must emphasize only those things that will help us to respond spiritually to what is occurring physically." In reference to a single mother offering her baby for adoption, the educators wrote: "Last minute regrets, fears and grief will be another hurdle to get over." They were told this was unacceptable secular language and needed to be changed.

STATEMENT EIGHT (Paragraph Nine) "The changes discussed in that meeting were never submitted to the pastoral staff. Instead, Gary resigned as an elder and withdrew from Grace Church completely."

RESPONSE It is true that Gary did not submit anything to the pastoral staff because: 1) nothing was requested; and 2) John ended the matter in his July 18, 1995, letter. The GCC statement said Gary resigned as an elder and withdrew from Grace Church completely. That was not the case. While Gary did resign from the elder board in July of 1995, he continued at Grace Church and under the leadership of Grace elders through the Spring of 1996. It would be easy for someone to read the above comment made by GCC elders and conclude that Gary resigned in protest or for purposes of self protection. Indeed, that is not true.

STATEMENT NINE (Paragraph 11 - 12) Confusion between biblical standards and matters of personal preference . . . Portraying schedule feeding as the true biblical practice . . . we would caution young mothers not to adopt any system of parenting that is so rigid that it requires them to quell the God-given maternal impulse (cf. Isa. 66:10-12) . . . GFI parents are taught that sling-type baby carriers are too child centered . . . and that a mother should not sleep next to their babies . . . Matthew 27:46 is used to justify the teaching that mothers should refuse to attend to crying infants who have already been fed, changed and had their basic needs met. Gary Ezzo writes "Praise God that the Father did not intervene when His son cried out on the cross."

RESPONSE There are a several points to be made pertaining to this section:

One: Anyone familiar with the Ezzo's teaching knows they make the argument

Two: Regarding Grace's new theological position on maternal impulse. Again,

The Ezzos believe as Oswald Chambers does on this subject. He says: "There is nothing either of the nature of impulse or of cold-bloodedness about our Lord, but only a calm strength that never got into panic. Most of us develop our Christianity along the line of our temperament, not along the line of God. Impulse is a trait in natural life, but our Lord always ignored it, because it hinders the development of the life of a disciple . . . Impulse is all right in a child, but it is disastrous in a man or woman. . . . Impulse has to be trained into intuition by discipline. (My Utmost For His Highest, pg. 295)

Three: The citation of Isa. 66:10-13 seems to bring no helpful light to

Isaiah 66:10-13 reads, "Be joyful with Jerusalem and rejoice for her, all you who love her; Be exceedingly glad with her all you who mourn over her, That you may nurse and be satisfied with her comforting breasts, That you may suck and be delighted with her bountiful bosom. For thus says the Lord, Behold I extend peace to her like a river, And the glory of the nations like an overflowing stream; And you shall be nursed you shall be carried on the hip and fondled on the knees. As one whom his mother comforts so I will comfort you."(NASB)

Clearly, the prophet is not intending to teach about "maternal impulse" nor is he attempting to establish some normative principle for methods of feeding and comforting a baby. (A variety of ways to comfort a baby is listed in Preparation for Parenting, Chapter 9). Isaiah is prophesying about a nation who will be blessed in provisions of a divine sort. This text is a poetic and prophetic reference about the barren daughter of Zion, Jerusalem, who will one day give birth again as demonstrated by the fact that from her breast she will supply her children with nourishment.

Four: Regarding slings and the Grace statement. In Preparation for

Five: Regarding mothers and bedsharing. The Ezzos have always recognized

One of the most recent cautions against co-sleeping comes from Dr. Clifford Nelson, a Multnomah County, Oregon, deputy medical examiner. In an article posted on the Internet, September, 1996, titled "Co-Sleeping Deaths," he notes, "The following unfortunate story is reported hundreds of times in the United States each year." In Madison County, Il, authorities are warning people not to let infants sleep with their mothers. In the first eight months of this year in Madison County, five infants have already died from parental overlay. The advocacy of shared sleep by Grace is not medically sound or supportable. (1 Kings 3:19).

Six: Regarding Matthew 27:46, the "statement" claims the Ezzos use this

STATEMENT TEN (Paragraph 14-18) ". . . GFI materials tend to be unclear on the issues of original sin and human depravity."

RESPONSE The Ezzos are thankful that the statement acknowledges that they do not deny depravity because indeed, they do not. Gary's position on depravity is exactly the same as John MacArthur's, and is clearly stated in GFI's resources. Opinions will always differ as to the amount of attention one should or should not give to any given theological topic.

STATEMENT ELEVEN (Paragraph 19) "Insufficient attention to the child's need for regeneration. "

RESPONSE If one turned to page 16 in Growing Kids God's Way, he would find under the "Foundations" section the first foundational truth that Gary expands on -- the child's need for salvation. Again, this is not communicated by GCC elders as a biblical matter, but rather in their opinion, there is "insufficient attention" given to this topic. The Ezzos are always grateful for constructive opinions.

STATEMENT TWELVE (Paragraph 20) "Gary himself once reported in an elder's meeting that GFI material has found a warm reception among Mormons and other non-evangelicals."

RESPONSE What was shared at the elders' meeting and other times, is that Growing Kids God's Way has proven to be an effective tool of evangelism of Mormons. They come to the classes for their felt need--parenting, and find their real need -- salvation in Jesus Christ.

The Ezzos are confused as to the elders' intention behind this statement. John has often noted that his sermons and books are used in many secular settings by non-Christians. It is our understanding that staff members of Brigham Young University recently visited Grace to talk with John about making some of his books required text at the university. That shouldn't be surprising. Any message which speaks to the issue of God's created order will find warm reception even among unbelievers. According to John, many unbelievers have used his messages on leadership. In the same manner, many unbelievers find the Ezzo's teaching on parenting helpful.

STATEMENT THIRTEEN (Paragraphs 21-27) Please read.

RESPONSE Anecdotal evidence has a limited usefulness in the pursuit of truth. Selectively chosen anecdotal statements have virtually no value to a truth-seeking process. Perry Mason never used that tactic because it was so full of holes!

STATEMENT FOURTEEN (Paragraph 27) "In several instances, Gary Ezzo has declined to listen to concerns from essentially friendly critics -- including fellow elders, pastors, and even co-workers in the GFI ministries." RESPONSE Declining to listen or hear someone on a biblical matter is clearly a moral concern. On the other hand, not agreeing with an opinion is not a moral matter. Gary and Anne Marie are characterized by listening to everyone who comes with a concern, thought, or opinion. But, as all teachers and leaders know, personal opinions and suggestions are not the same thing as facts in need of attention. The important thing to remember in all this language is that Gary listened to his pastor and did what his pastor requested of him.

STATEMENT FIFTEEN (Paragraph 28) ". . . just before he withdrew permanently from Grace Church, Gary sent an e-mail message to a Grace to You donor in the Midwest. In the message, Gary claimed that several staff members of the church had 'gone amillennial in their eschatology'; that attendance at the church had dwindled so that church services were largely empty; and that Lance Quinn (Senior Associate Pastor) had 'walked out' on John MacArthur -- implying that Lance had left the church staff under less than positive circumstances."

RESPONSE This charge is one of the more disconcerting elements of the entire "statement." Grace is known as a church that is serious about the study of Scripture and faithful obedience to the Word of God. John wrote Gary concerning that e-mail message. Gary responded immediately by calling John to seek forgiveness and followed up their conversation with an apologetic letter to John and to the donor (September 17, 1996). After receiving forgiveness, the issue was fully resolved. Furthermore, after their initial conversation, John never wrote or called Gary to discuss this issue again. This incident was a private matter dealt with in private. Gary was dumbfounded when he read about the incident in Grace's "statement." There is no bibl

Oh, yes, by all means, read it all: the CRI articles, the documentation supporting them, GFI's response...

I'm confident that most people who are not so enamored wuth GFI that they have lost all objectivity will be very concenred about GFI indeed, and the level of trust many believers have placed in that orginazation.

Of course, just getting out GKGW and checking the Bible references in context and in meaning will go a long way in deflating Ezzo's tires, as well as looking into whether research really supports any of his infant program claims.