Over the past four years in particular, much has been written and posted on the internet about the parenting program authored by Gary and Anne-Marie Ezzo and distributed through Growing Families International (GFI, www.gfi.org ). Having attended three GFI programs over the past four years, (`Prep for parenting', `Preparation for the toddler years' and `Growing kids God's way') I have been interested to read these alternative viewpoints. This article outlines my thoughts and views on the points raised by various people.
Note that many of the references mentioned in the discussion come from www.ezzo.info ) which appears to be a site which has collected much of the GFI commentries and material critical about GFI into one place. In some cases, articles are also available at an external originating site. There are many more articles available on the internet on this subject. Just do a google search using the terms "GFI critique" and go from there.
I wish to emphasise at this point that I am not against the GFI material and in fact have used it with great success with our two children (and continue to do so). This article is not a critique of the GFI material; rather it is an attempt at an objective evaluation of the negative publicity which the material has attracted. In the course of the article I do make some suggestions about how some parts of the GFI material might be improved. Again, these are not criticisms - rather, I view them simply as constructive feedback which may help make future editions of the GFI resources more medically/Biblically rigorous and less prone to misinterpretation.
Finally, bear in mind that the ideas and thoughts detailed in this article are my personal reactions to the points raised by other authors, and these are undoubtedly influenced by my interpretation of the GFI material in light of other things I've read and my life experiences.
Much of the criticism directed at GFI material seems to come back to the mis-interpretation of the resources. While there are possibly isolated passages which are open to this, it seems likely that at least some of the critics (not necessarily those cited directly in this article) haven't actually read the material in full, and are basing their comments on a publisher's note, a web summary or other similarly brief descriptions. Commentaries arising from such sources in isolation are clearly invalid - no one can properly review material they have not read in full.
Before addressing specific points raised in GFI commentries, I wish to briefly mention two general issues raised by numerous authors. They are mentioned here because I believe the interpretation of the GFI program which is indicated by the mentioning of these has influenced the way the entire GFI program has been perceived by the respective authors. This in turn has given rise to much of the specific criticisms which are dealt with in section 3 of this article.
What became clear to me as I read through the critical articles was that the critics had seem to have all interpreted the material as being extremely rigid. That was not how I had perceived it, although this could just be me. For me, the actions, behaviour and parental response should always be evaluated within the context of the situation. As far as I could tell, most critics and others with articles on the website either failed to see this, or placed far more emphasis on "the routine" per se, rather than the complete view - in other words, they interpreted it in a black-and-white context, when this was not intended. As such, they were clearly being legalistic in their interpretation of the material. In fact, almost every critic cites the legalistic nature of the program. As an example, at http://ourworld.cs.com/kent1750/GKGW/complete.htm?f=fs in an article dated April 07, 2001,we read (in section IV, "Concern #3"):
Contradictions within the material are another strong area of criticism. Again, for me, most of this again comes down to context and interpretation. As an example, consider one of the "exhibits" given in the "Double messages" section of the undated critique at http://www.ezzo.info/Francis/misrep.htm:
Within my interpretation of the program, these "contradictions" don't present a a problem (believe it or not). The statement on obedience is of course what all parents aspire to. However, we are all fallen people and have to realise that our babies will not always obey first time. When evaluating the incident, the second phrase come into play - there might be good reasons why the instruction wasn't followed and the parental reaction must take that into account. That's what being flexible is all about. It's kind of like us singing songs like "Best friend" (Hillsong) and "As the deer pants", with lines like "Jesus, you are my best friend" and "You alone are my heart's desire". There's nothing wrong with these IMHO - they simply express what we aspire too. However, there are times in everyone's day-to-day lives where the lines do not apply and they need to be interpreted in that context. It's a similar thing with many of the so-called contradictions within the GFI material; yes, on the face of it they are contradictory, but the statements must be interpreted in the context of the program as a whole. I'm certainly not saying that the material as written isn't open to misinterpretation in this respect - there are certainly parts of it which would benefit from a rewrite or rephrasing. However, making blanket statements like "it's full of contraditions" to me shows that the author perhaps had made up their mind before writing the article and constructed things around their predetermined conclusion without fully understanding the way things fitted together.
Having read through material regarding the GFI programs one must say that the points raised are food for throught - with some significant caveats. It seems that, broadly speaking, the criticims associated with the content of the GFI parenting courses fall into four broad categories:
If the GFI material is implemented in a strict legalistic way there is the possibility that a "non-thriving" baby will result. The issue of non-thriving babies is dealt with in detail by the article from "AAP news" volume 14, number 4, April 1998 (from American Association of Pediatrics, AAP) titled "`Babywise' advice linked to dehydration, failure to thrive" by Matthew Aney, M.D. ( http://www.ezzo.info/Aney/aapnews.pdf ). Stated in this article is the concern:
Legalistic adherance to "the routine" is clearly on show in some of the "Voices of experience" articles. In the unattributed article "10 years of GKGW" dated March 2003 ( http://www.ezzo.info/Voices/10years.htm ) the author states in reference to her "prep" baby:
Another thing mentioned in Dr Aney's article is
It is possible that the definition we use was mentioned in the "Prep" book we used initially which was an older edition - apparently the Ezzos changed their definition at some point.
Other "dangerous practices" mentioned in various articles deal with emotional and physiological childhood development. Once again though, many of the problems cited seem to stem from a rigid following of certain PDF guidelines while omitting common sense and context.
The common thread in all these cases seems to be a blind, legalistic following to selected "prep" and "GKGW" material while ignoring other important components such as context. Perhaps this is an indication that the material needs to be revised to make it less vulnerable to such misinterpretations. I don't think that it makes the material inherently "bad" though.
This point identified by many critics certainly points to an area of the GFI materials which could do with some work. Dr Matthew Aney identifies 35 unsubstantiated or unreferenced medial claims made in the 1995 edition of "Babywise" at http://www.ezzo.info/Aney/unsub.htm (written when the 1995 "Babywise" edition was the current edition). As a scientist, I agree that the the lack of attribution or supporting evidence is noticeable throughout the GFI material. This opens the material up for secular criticism - in the secular medical/scientific world, statements such as those identified by Dr Aney would require references before the article/book was even considered for publication.
As is pointed out by Dr Francis at http://www.ezzo.info/Francis/misrep.htm:
Other similar experiences are summarised in a "Christianity Today" article from 13 November 2000 entitled "Unprepared to Teach Parenting?", available at http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/013/6.70.html The section "Intimidating critics" again shows that Gary and GFI have "...a well-established pattern of sharply rebutting his professional critics. He has characterized his Christian critics as "wicked" and lumped them with others he calls "anti-God."" Kelly Griffith, "Q & A with Gary Ezzo" found at http://www.rickross.com/reference/gfi/gfi4.html (or as a PDF at http://www.ezzo.info/Aney/ezzoqandabradentonherald.pdf ), reports:
The are some claims made in GFI material which are certainly not supported by publically available research. One such issue is summarised at http://www.ezzo.info/Articles/ezzo_aap_table.htm (apparently linked to the "Q and A" article cited previously, and therefore probably dated 1997 as well) and compares the Ezzo teaching "on a mother's ability to produce breastmilk" and what doctors currently teach. Whereas the Ezzos claim
A lack of references also leads people to question the authority under which Gary and Anne-Marie make these claims. Gary has no medical qualifications while Anne-Marie was a pediatric nurse at some point in the past. Critics therefore see unsubstantiated medical claims in GFI material being made by unqualified people. The claims are therefore dismissed as being without solid basis which ends up undermining the entire GFI program.
If Gary Ezzo (and GFI in general) wish to be taken seriously by secular and Christian people over an extended period, they must become more transparent and open with the sources for their claims. Simply getting all defensive does more harm than good, and it is this non-transparency which is starting to concern many people. Certainly if there are no grounds/evidence for claims made or the claims are wrong, then they need to be withdrawn from the GFI material. The readers of GFI material trust the Ezzos to tell the truth, and they have every right to know where information and statements come from.
Having said this, I am also aware that in the past, supporters of the Ezzo method who went public with their support have themselves been unjustifiably ostracised by Ezzo critics (and for all I know this may be continuing today). This in fact may be the reason why at least in some cases references have been omitted, and it seems to be at least part of the reason why Gary has become so closed when it comes to criticism. If this is indeed the situation then it's a very difficult one to resolve. The references and attributions are needed to counter many of the points raised by critics of the Ezzos, but it seems likely that some of those critics will make unsubstanciated public statements about the authors of those references if the identities of the authors are made public. This is not how peer review is meant to work, and if the claims about harrassment of supports is true then it would appear that the critics have only themselves to blame for the situation they are are so critical about.
Although not solving the impasse, one possible way of diffusing the situation might be for GFI to cease their public (and sometimes personal) attacks of their critics, and instead adopt a standard statement for interviews and on the internet objectively explaining why some of the information has been withheld - without anger, attacks, claims of "misguided" opponents or specific references to people. This would at least prevent critics from becoming emotional when discussing their rebuffs by Gary and thus remove what has become a foundation for many criticisms. It won't prevent people attacking the lack of references or public professional supporters, but it would give the public an insight into some of the causes.
Obviously this issue only applies to the non-secular components of GFI resources. It is perhaps the area of greatest concern in courses which pertain to be "Biblically based". The criticisms in this area generally boil down to one of two allegations:
At http://ourworld.cs.com/kent1750/GKGW/complete.htm?f=fs in the article "An Evaluation of the Ezzo Parenting Programs: Growing Kids Gods Way & Preparation for Parenting" (April 07, 2001), Dr. Kent McClain outlines a non-exhaustive list of 40 scriptural references used in GKGW which he believes are either out of context or mis-applied. The article gives one example where the author feels the quoted references (creation) do not give a Biblical mandate to the Ezzo's claims (the priority of the husband/wife relationship). Note that they are not necessarily attacking the Ezzo's claims here (in this example nor in the other cited "problem" refererences): they are simply pointing out that in their opinion, the scriptural support for the claims being made cannot be validly drawn from the passages cited by GFI in the opinion of the author.
The same author also criticised the GFI material for omitting what they see as "missing lessons" - lessons they feel should be present in a course called "Growing Kids God's Way". Here we see another aspect of criticism - many people are hung up on the title and whether or not the resulting material really is "God's way". To a certain extent this is an argument of semantics though. The "missing lessons" cited in the article being discussed more or less fall into the category of "Christian Education" as opposed to parenting per se. They aren't talking about the reasons for Christian Education or even how one might go about it - they are actually covering the subject matter in detail. Christian Education is an important component of raising Christian children, but detailing the groundwork of the Christian faith - as these "missing lessons" do - is outside the scope of the GKGW course. There are many resources already written to help parents in this regard, and to focus on their omission from GKGW would appear to be a distraction from the primary task of analysing GKGW for what it is.
In regard to the complaints that the title "Growing Kids God's Way" is too exclusive, it should be mentioned that GFI have recently renamed all their material (including "Growing Kids God's Way"). While it's important to note that this is apparently not in direct response to the complaints made, it will never-the-less remove this semantic distraction from the discussions.
Dr James Dobson from "Focus on the Family" also took an issue with the GKGW title in a "Focus on the Family" radio interview on August 25, 1999 (see http://www.ezzo.info/Focus/dobsontranscript.htm for a transcript). In his view it "... implies that theres only one way to deal with all the myriad of circumstances that come up in the realm of child rearing." Related to that is his concerns regarding "rigidity" in GKGW, how all children are different and how GKGW doesn't allow for this variation. Once again, this latter point comes back to the legalistic interpretation which many seem to be applying to the program. Dr Dobson concludes his answer with
The lesson here is that like with all Christian literature, the reader of GFI material needs to check the Biblical references and implied theology for validity and applicability to the context they are being used in, with reference to one's theology. Conclusions reached will vary from person to person, but when and if a real theological issue is found it should not be swept under the carpet - either more appropriate scriptural basis needs to be found, or the offending material simply looses its claim to have a "Biblical mandate". What Dr McClain's article (along with other similar articles) shows is that there seems to be a need for GFI to address at least some of the scriptural references used in their courses, and a reader should be aware of this issue when using the GFI material.
In a way this is the most contraversial aspect of the criticisms levelled at the GFI material. There is far too much information to go into any detail here, but the following allegations seem to be consistantly raised.
It must be emphasised that the exact details surrounding all the above allegations are not documented very extensively on the net. It is therefore very difficult for anyone (including myself) to pass any objective judgement on the events themselves or any implications drawn from them.
Having said that, these are serious allegations and they should be dealt with by all concerned in an open and amicable way. Unfortunately, the evidence available seems to suggest that Gary is unwilling to confront the allegations and answer them (with the possible exception of point 4: Gary has repeatedly claimed - in the "Christianity Today" article and elsewhere - that this was/is an internal GFI matter and as a privately held organisation he is quite possibly correct). Once again, the lack of transparency in dealing with issues is only hurting the ministry that GFI claims to serve, and leaves them open to wide-ranging criticism.
The lack of accountability, lack of transparency and the misinterpretation and/or misapplication of scriptures has lead some people to view GFI as becoming cultic in many ways.
The article "MORE THAN A PARENTING MINISTRY: The Cultic Characteristics of Growing Families International" by Kathleen Terner and Elliot Miller (CRI statement DG233, available from Christian Research Institute at http://www.equip.org/free/DG233.htm and first published in the Spring 1998 issue of the "Christian Research Journal"), details the arguments the authors see as reasons to be concerned at cultic tendancies of GFI. The suggestions in this article are not without basis given the current state of affairs. However, having read the article it appears that the grounds for many of the points raised lie in the problems already identified:
The evidence persented in cited articles and links therein clearly illustrate that GFI material is open to mis-interpretation and that at least some of the claimed scientific/medical and Biblical basis is not present in the way it is portrayed. For many people this will not be a problem since they will apply common sense and context to situations as they arise. Many will also subconciously adjust the GFI material to be consistant with their own theology and knowledge of child-rearing practices without giving it a second thought. (Perhaps, having done this myself, this is the reason why I haven't had insurmountable problems with the material.)
However, it is clear that there are also many people who do not do this and seemingly miss the importance of context within the GFI programs. These people are certainly open to being mislead by any unsubstantiated claims and mis-applied scripture references which may be present, and are at risk of adopting a rigid legalisitc approach to the entire program. As has been demonstrated, such a legalistic approach can have undesireable consequences with regard to child health when taken to the extreme.
It appears from the evidence presented that a majority of criticisms come from people in this latter group - those who have adopted a legalistic approach to the material. This is not necessarily the fault of the people concerned, nor of the GFI content as such - it is simply the result of a mis-communication between the GFI authors and the people reading the material. However, the fact that this can and has occurred does not automatically make the GFI resources themselves (or the ideas expressed therein) "bad". There are some very good ideas within the GFI material which I have no problem using and implementing, despite what has been written.
Having said that, the articles reviewed here have uncovered some areas which GFI would be well-advised to address. Doing so in a clear, concise manner would answer the critics in an appropriate way. The process needs to include GFI becoming more open in its dealings with critics and what they say. This would involve taking the criticisms on board and addressing them, either by making the material more robust (by adding references, fixing Biblical mis-application, perhaps expressing some points more clearly, etc) or removing implications and statements which have no solid basis. In addition, Gary needs to address character criticisms levelled at him personally since these also seem to be undermining the GFI teaching while left unresolved. Doing all this would greatly strengthen the integrity of the program and give it more authority.
Perhaps the most prudent advise in this whole thing comes from Grey Gunn from "Focus on the Family (America)". In a statement issued in January 1999 (see http://www.ezzo.info/Focus/FOTFstatement.htm ):