Second Version of Ezzo's Verbatim Interview with Maynard

I along with the rest of the ethically minded Christian community grieve about the unkind statements, exaggerations, innuendos, sarcasm and blatantly false reporting appearing in Roy Maynard's article, "The Ezzo's know best," in the May 25, 1996 issue of World Magazine How did the journalistic ethics of the Washington Post find their way into the editorial room of World Magazine. The use of techniques that include using general terms such as "critics say" without attribution and failing to verify if what the "critics" say is true; taking quotations out of context to prove a predetermined point; and using such loaded words as "controversial" to put a negative spin on the subject of the article is not the Christian way.

For a writer doing three months worth of research, Roy Maynard missed some rather major points. For example, he states Growing Kids God’s Way is the title of all of our programs and spans, as he wrote, "the cradle to the dorm room" (page 18). Obviously it is not. It is the title of one parenting curriculum that covers the early years of moral development to preteens. How does one work three months on an article and miss the name of the program? And then to quote William Sears as a critic shows just how far ideologically “left” this article originated. You cannot get much more permissive in parenting than Sears' views. Obviously, someone within World Magazine owed someone on the outside a favor.

And just how much of a spin was put on this article? It is only right that we go directly to the source and interview Roy Maynard. We talked initially before the article was written and then twice again after it appeared. Our goal was to honestly attempt to understand Roy's motive, choice of words, his purpose for writing this piece, and why the use of obvious misquotes. This response is not a defense of what we believe or teach, this is a charge against the journalistic integrity of World Magazine.

Gary E.
Roy, does this article represent the standard of integrity that readers can expect from World Magazine?

Roy M.
Yes, I believe it represents the integrity of World Magazine.

Gary E.
Was the article title, 'The Ezzos know best" and the subtitle, "Controversial parenting curriculum is sweeping the Church" your idea?

Roy M.
No. The title was not mine. It came two edits beyond my influence.

Gary E.
On page 18 you wrote, "critics say the Ezzos make claims including medical ones that cannot be backed up." Did William Sears make that statement?

Roy M.
Yes, and some nurses I talked with.

Gary E.
So how do you know what they said was true? How do you know it wasn’t some exaggerated claim.

Roy M.
I don't know.

Gary E.
So they made the statement, but you didn't pursue whether their statements were true, but put it in print anyway?

Roy M.
Those were their statements. I did not say (in the article) that they were true statements.

Gary E.
Since you did not check back with us to get our response to these statements, even though we requested that of you on three separate occasions, knowing how often people like Sears misquotes us, you purposed to lead your audience to a distorted conclusion by these unsubstantiated remarks.

Roy M.
(No response.)

Gary E.
On page 19 you stated, “Instead of feeding babies when they are hungry (on demand), the Ezzos advocate feeding newborns every three hours." Roy, this quote is suggesting that we do not believe in feeding babies when they are hungry. Did you mean to say that?

Roy M.
No and I don't think I said that. I understand "demand feeding" to mean feeding a baby when it is hungry, and that you (Gary) teach that if a baby is hungry and is crying, but it is not time to eat, that the baby doesn't get fed. For example, don’t you believe (Gary) that if your baby wakes fifteen minutes early that you should just let the baby cry it out?

Gary E.
Where did you get that idea from Roy? That is not in our book nor on our tapes, so why did you say something we do not say? Someone had to put that idea in your head.

Roy M.
I thought I heard you say that.

Gary E.
Well lets look at what we do say as it relates to your statements on feeding a hungry baby and your quote: "Let the baby 'cry it out,' the Ezzo's advise," (page 19). How do you reconcile what you wrote with what we state on page 147 in Preparation For Parenting which you have in your possession.

"It should go without saying that ignoring a hungry baby's cry is unacceptable. Under normal circumstances, any crying that occurs just before a feeding should be limited, since the next event is mealtime. If your baby is hungry, feed him. If he routinely shows signs of hunger before his next scheduled feeding, then find out the reason why rather than just letting him cry it out. Your baby's routine is to serve you, you are not to serve your baby's routine."

Roy, why did you write in quotes, "Let the baby 'cry it out,' the Ezzo advise" when we clearly write just the opposite?

Roy M.
I found people during my interviews using the phrase "let the baby cry it out."

Gary E.
But Roy, you quote us as saying that. You mean someone else said it, but you credited us with that line? Is that representative of Christian journalism? Do you have even a slight bit of remorse that you misquoted us here and in other sections?

Roy M.
No because at the time I wrote the article I thought it was your quote.

Gary E.
Okay, lets go on. Regarding Susan Watkinson: Did you know her personally before you wrote the article?

Roy M.
No.

Gary E.
You wrote she tried the program for two weeks and said it did not work for her. What was she trying to get to work for her in two weeks? Did you ask her how, just after two weeks she knew the program didn't work? (Whatever that means.)

Roy M.
No. She said it didn't work.

Gary E.
Well, how do you know she even tried it?

Roy M.
I don't know.

Gary E.
But you still reported her statements as fact even though you had no evidence that she even tried it and furthermore, nowhere in our material do we promise that the program will work in two weeks.

Roy M.
(No response.)

Gary E.
You said "Valerie Jacobson and her husband studied the audio tape series and the Bible and decided they had another way to parent." What did they learn from the Bible that told them to demand feed, since that is obviously what they did?

Roy M.
But I didn't say they learned anything from the Bible that supported demand feeding.

Gary E.
But you implied to the reader by the use of your words that she found another way in the Bible.

Roy M.
Yes I wrote that but that is not what she said. (Reading from his notes), she said she couldn't find where the Bible taught about scheduling feeding a baby.

Gary E.
Now wait a minute Roy, you said she went through the program with her husband.

Roy M.
Yes, she said that.

Gary E.
But we make that very same point in the first chapter starting out with the very first paragraph. In Preparation For Parenting, we state: "Scripture has very few specific mandates for practical applications in the realm of parenting, especially infant parenting. It provides the spiritual goals of parenting, but not exact or specific how-tos." Further in the chapter, (page 26) we state: "When it comes to a method of feeding, the Bible is silent. It does not speak of demand feeding, clock feeding, or the PDF plan. No one can elevate a method as being spiritually right or wrong."

Roy, how did Valerie Jacobsen and her husband study the prep series and miss these foundational statements that clearly state scheduling a baby is not in the Bible? How did you miss these statements? Inserting the Jacobsen statement the way you did strongly suggest that we teach scheduling a baby’s feeding time is a biblical mandate.

Roy M.
I don't know. That is what she told me.

Gary E.
You quoted William Sears to say the Ezzo's program "is damaging, splitting churches. It hurts babies." Did Dr. Sears offer any support of these accusations.

Roy M.
These were his statements, I didn't say they were true. They were just his opinions.

Gary E.
Did you ask him for support for his statements?

Roy M.
No.

Gary E.
Okay, so as a matter of responsible journalism, do you have a minimal obligation to find out if what this critic is saying is even true?

Roy M.
No. I am not responsible for the truthfulness of his statements. I am only responsible for reporting what he said accurately.

Gary E.
So you feel no responsibility for misleading the reader by stating someone's opinion as a matter of fact?

Roy M.
No, because the overall conclusion of the article is still my opinion.

Gary E.
You stated that Sears told you that churches were splitting because of the program.

Roy M.
That is what he said.

Gary E.
How many churches did he say?

Roy M.
He didn't say a number.

Gary E.
Roy, we're in 3,500 -4,000 churches here and around the world. You cited this as a major issue. Did he mean we split one hundred churches?

Roy M.
No.

Gary E.
Did he know of fifty churches?

Roy M.
No.

Gary E.
Did he give you names of ten churches?

Roy M.
No. I didn't ask him.

Gary E.
Can you tell me what he did say?

Roy M.
He said he heard about a few churches that had some problems with some of your people being too zealous.

Gary E.
Okay, let me try to understand this. You report an unsubstantiated opinion as if this were a major problem. Aren't you obligated to be slightly more balanced in your reporting?

Roy M.
No. I already told you. I am not responsible for the accuracy of anyone's opinion, only to report what they say accurately.

Gary E.
You talked with Dr. Robert Bucknam, a pediatrician who is one of many pediatricians endorsing and using the program?

Roy M.
Yes.

Gary E.
He obviously doesn’t agree with Dr. Sears' methods or assessment? But you felt no need to quote him?

Roy M.
(No response)

Gary E.
William Sears wrote a book entitled Christian Parenting. Given your statement that critics say "the program title suggests that the Ezzo's methods are God's methods and the corollary that any other method is wrong," does the William Sear’s book and title fall into the same category? In other words, if you don't do it Sears' way you are not doing the Christian way.

Roy M.
Well, that is a good point. Yes, that title would suggest that very thing.

Gary E.
Roy, you quoted that we used the crucifixion of Christ to justify letting babies cry. But the context of that statement is not dealing with a baby's crying but is part of an entire section dealing with the character of God. It is dealing with the erroneous assertion that God’s character will never let a baby cry and that he would respond immediately without thought to us. The point of our comment was that God so loved the world that He did not intervene when His Son cried out on the cross. Why did you lift this statement out of context and give it another meaning?

Roy M.
I thought you were using this example to justify letting a baby cry.

Gary E.
But clearly Roy, the context of the statement is not about babies crying but a faulty view of God's character.

Roy M.
Well, I don't know about that.

Gary E.
It seems that your quote came from someone else's criticism and you never checked it out for yourself before now?

Roy M.
(No response.)

Gary E.
You stated at the end of the article that we make the dubious claim that "their method (referring to the Ezzos) can generate a type of spiritual inertia in children." Roy, where did you read that?

Roy M.
You said that in The Bible and Common Sense Parenting.

Gary E.
Where in the little booklet do we say the “Ezzo method” produces a type of spiritual inertia? We don't say "our method" will do that.

Roy M.
(No response)

Gary E.
Here is that entire paragraph from which you lifted one sentence out of. "There is no way that positive parental behavior can eradicate the sin nature of a child, but it can help mold the child during the early years to receive the things of God as he matures. Positive parental behavior creates a type of spiritual inertia. By that I mean, once parents have instilled biblical patterns into the child, their training should carry him to the point where God’s spirit can take control of the reins of his heart."

Our point is basic to spiritual training. Christian training in the home should always be moving children toward God. And the sanctifying grace of Christian parents who remain obedient to God will carry the child until the Holy Spirit regenerates the heart. This is what you call a dubious claim?

Roy M.
Well, that is how I interpreted it.

Gary E.
Roy, if there was confusion on any point why did you not pursue us for our response to their charges?

Roy M.
I did meet with you and asked you questions when we went out for coffee. I raised some of these issues with you then.

Gary E.
Yes, Roy you did ask some questions, but none of them really had anything to do with what you put in your article. You did not ask us a single question about controversy in churches, how feeding a baby routinely hurt them, what we believe about letting babies cry it out, feeding babies when they're hungry, what happens when friends don't agree. crying and the crucifixion of Christ and I can go on. Roy, you mislead us and the public. Are there no ethics left in Christian journalism?

Roy M.
This is the nature of journalism.

Gary E.
Even Christian journalism.

Conclusion:
In the first five paragraphs Roy Maynard summarized the obvious results of this program: The teaching yields good kids that obey the first time, look out for each other, children who are polite and respectful to each other and to visitors. In short it is a values based parenting program that changes lives. This teaching is controversial because biblical ethics will always challenge the status quo. And some people don't like that.

Roy Maynard's Article in PDF form.

Contact Living Hope

To Verify Living Hope Evangelical Fellowship's Statement about Gary Ezzo

Although I do not have the phone number of Living Hope so that you can contact them to verify their statement, I do have the e-mail address of pastor Dave Maddox. You can contact him at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. I should mention, however, that Dave Maddox has e-mailed me his opinion that only elders and pastors in churches which use the Ezzo materials, are considering using the Ezzo materials or considering inviting Ezzo to speak should be given the LHEF statement. I clearly disagree and believe that I Tim 5:19-20 argues that the Church be warned, not just pastors and elders.

Response to Growing Families International

Response to Growing Families International

by Joel and Kathryn Kuhlmann
December 31, 1998

A Public Response by Gary Ezzo Mentions Us

We are mentioned on pages 8 and 9 of Gary Ezzo's public response to the Christian Research Journal article about GFI under the heading "Example Four: 'Questions Unanswered or the Questioner Attacked'." In question is a letter we wrote to Gary and Anne Marie Ezzo in August of 1996 at the encouragement of Assistant Pastor Richard Encinias of Calvary of Albuquerque, the church we attend.

Since these accusations against us have been made publicly, we would like to set the record straight publicly.

(A chronology of our interactions with GFI as well as links to original copies of the letters in question can be found by clicking here)

Ezzo Allegation:
"First, much of what the Kuhlmanns wrote did not come directly from PFP, but rather it came indirectly from a compilation of misquotes and false statements circulating among La Leche League/attachment parenting internet bulletin boards. As such, Mr. and Mrs. Kuhlmann simply passed on someone else's misquotes that circulate frequently among these groups."

Our Response:
It would, of course, have been appropriate for the Ezzos to include examples to back up this statement.

In actuality, none of our statements were taken from La Leche League/attachment parenting internet bulletin boards and there are no misquotes in our letter. Any quotes used are from one of three sources: the Bible, Preparation for Parenting, or Dr. William Sears, and the source of each quote is clearly documented.

Our letter to the Ezzos contained 17 footnoted references. Every single one of these is from the 5th edition of Preparation for Parenting (the latest edition available at the time of our letter). An appendix included excerpts from the writings of Dr. William Sears, a prominent Christian pediatrician; these quotes were clearly identified as being from Dr. Sears. The appendix was included only to refute the Ezzos' gross misrepresentation of attachment parenting.

We do not know why the Ezzos decided to use the term "much" to describe the quantity of our quotations that did not come directly from PFP when, in fact, all of those in our letter to them came directly from PFP. But then, to borrow a phrase, it must depend on what your definition of "much" is.

Ezzo Allegation:
"Second, even though the Kuhlmanns had no children at the time (although they were considering adoption), Pastor Richard Encinias, one of our GFI state directors, gave the Kuhlmanns several hours of his time answering their questions."

"Given that so much time was already spent answering questions, we found it unusual for a couple to be so insistent that Gary Ezzo respond personally to their letter."

Our Response:
We are curious why the Ezzos have chosen to make the point that we had no children at the time of our discussions with Richard Encinias. The curriculum we were questioning was entitled "Preparation for Parenting," and at the time of our first interactions with Richard we were in the process of adopting a child. Gary Ezzo was well aware of this, since he made handwritten notes on a letter we wrote to Richard in which we made this very point. (Note: as of this writing we have a 17 month old daughter, adopted at birth.)

Merriam Webster defines preparation as "to plan in advance." It seems to us that a couple planning on having children should be the perfect candidates for such a program. In fact, the Ezzos themselves have this to say about the Preparation for Parenting curriculum: "If you are expecting a baby or you have an infant, then this series will help you and your family get off on the right foot." This statement is the description of PFP on GFI's web site. We certainly hope that the Ezzos do not consider the process of adoption any different from "expecting a baby" when it comes to preparing to be parents.

The second statement above implies that for someone in Richard Encinias' high position as a GFI state director to spend several hours of time with us was extraordinary and should put to rest any questions we may have had. In reality, it was Richard's job to talk to us. He was the Assistant Pastor in charge of Family Ministries at Calvary of Albuquerque, and in that role was the appropriate one for us to contact with concerns over the parenting curriculum being used at our church. Unfortunately, he was unable to provide satisfactory answers to many of our questions, troubling from someone in a leadership position of the organization in question (GFI).

Significant in its omission is the fact that Richard was the one who encouraged us to share our concerns directly with the Ezzos in the first place, as stated in our letter to them. He suggested that we take the approach outlined in Matthew 18:15, and go directly to our brother with our concerns. In fact, Richard said that he would hand deliver our letter to Gary Ezzo in person, which he did.

It was not necessarily a personal response that we were looking for from the Ezzos as much as a respectful response and one which actually answered our questions. Unfortunately, as stated in the Christian Research Journal article (April-June 1998 issue), Gary Ezzo's position to us was clear: "There was no mistake - this is the response. Your letter although I'm sure sincere was so badly flawed in its assertions that any other type of response was rendered useless." (The entire note from which this quote was taken can be seen by clicking here)

Ezzo Allegation:
"Our interests in this couple were further sparked by the inadvertent receipt of an e-mail to Mrs. Kuhlmann ..."

"In response to this e-mail, Kathy Kuhlmann out of fear that this group would be discovered, wrote the following:"

"Scripture teaches that there are times to answer questions and there are times when answering is not the right thing to do."

"In rare occasions, such as this one, impure motives surface. In those situations, an honest answer does not cause the tension to go away."

Our Response:
It appears that the Ezzos considered this email and subsequent note to be evidence of "impure motives" on our part. They state that Kathy wrote a note "out of fear that this group would be discovered." It is interesting that the Ezzos can discern a person's motives from thousands of miles away. In actuality, the note was written to merely pass on a request we had received that certain information be kept private. The Ezzos apparently decided that their "inadvertent" (read surreptitious) receipt of this email nullified the request for privacy and gave them the right to publish this publicly on the internet. They certainly did not contact us for permission to reprint this private correspondence.

As the Ezzos point out, we received the email in question on October 4, 1996. What they fail to mention is that this was 13 days after we received Gary Ezzo's response to our letter (September 21).

However Ezzo was able to acquire email never intended for him, he acquired it after he had already responded to our letter, and thus it could not possibly have influenced his response. Only via the art of time twisting can Ezzo claim that our "impure motives" made clear to him in this email correspondence caused him to realize that "there are times when answering is not the right thing to do." It's unfortunate for Gary Ezzo that a simple check of well-documented dates clearly proves that he answered our inquiry significantly prior to learning of, what he terms, our "impure motives".

Ezzo is absolutely mistaken in his presumption of our motives and in his statements hinting at some sort of conspiracy. We were simply raising concerns we had personally about the GFI parenting curriculum.

It should also be noted that we meant to share this email only with Calvary Chapel. It had nothing to do with Gary Ezzo, as we had already pursued that route and had received Ezzo's response to our concerns. At that point, our only interest was in getting our church to understand the problems with GFI.

Conclusion:
It is not surprising that we, as the authors of the letter in question, would feel that these accusations by the Ezzos are a misrepresentation of the facts. That is why we wanted to make the letter (and information about the events surrounding its writing) available for anyone who would like to see it and decide for themselves whether this is an appropriate example for the Christian Research Institute to use of "Questions Unanswered or the Questioner Attacked."

(The entire chronology of events surrounding our correspondence as well as copies of the original documents can be seen by clicking here.)

Additional Notes:
Calvary of Albuquerque has discontinued use of all GFI material.
Richard Encinias is no longer on staff.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.