The following file was found at the GFI Website in October, 1996. Since that time, they've removed it (or moved it to a place I've not seen).
Gary Ezzo Responds to Roy Maynard's Article in the May 25 1996 Issue of World Magazine
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.