A Review and Commentary of <i>Preparation for Parenting
	an infant management program developed by Gary and Anne Marie Ezzo
by Heidi Bingham

©1998 Heidi A. Bingham.  All rights reserved.  This information is 
 protected under copyright laws
This document may be reproduced in whole or in part as long as:
--All credit is given to Heidi A. Bingham as the author with inclusion of
  the email address:  cornerstone_@geocities.com
--No part is changed or altered in any way.</
--No financial gain is realized as the result of use of this text.
--Copyright information is included with whatever portion is being 
  reproduced

I have hesitated to write on this issue since so much has already been
written and is available on the Web 
http://www.mailing-list.net/redrhino/Ezzo/Files.html, much of it by people 
far more qualified than I to evaluate the materials. However, after much 
study and prayer, I have become convinced that I need to add my voice to 
those who have expressed concern with this program

_Preparation for Parenting_ (PFP), (subtitled: Bringing God's Order to Your 
Baby's Day and Restful Sleep to Your Baby's Night) is a step-by-step guide 
to parenting an infant through the first 5 months of his life. It is 
authored by Gary Ezzo and his wife Anne Marie, and is published by Growing 
Families International (GFI) of Chatsworth, California. This material is 
also offered as _On Becoming Babywise, I_. This is a nearly identical 
secular version of PFP, the main difference being the removal of all 
Scripture references and Biblical support. It is coauthored by Gary Ezzo
and Dr. Robert Buckman.  Although my comments on the use of Scripture in 
PFP will not be applicable to _Babywise_, my comments on the medical 
claims of PFP will be.

The Ezzos' purpose in writing the program is commendable. They wish to 
guide parents in caring for infants in a godly fashion. They encourage 
parents to make the baby a welcome member of the family and not the 
center of it. "Democratic parenting," they write, "the idea that reduces 
parents to an equal status with their children, was never God's intention.
"(page 31)*1.  They speak out against child-centered parenting, a 
practice that caters to a child's every whim and teaches them they can 
get their way with their parents. I agree, and fully appreciate why 
the Ezzos felt it necessary to create this program. Unfortunately, in 
his attempt to avoid child-centered parenting, Mr. Ezzo errs in the 
opposite extreme. PFP is a parent-centered program that insists adults 
are more important than children and encourages parents to selfishly put 
their own desires ahead of their newborns. In doing so, they give out 
what appears to be sound medical advice, but is unsubstantiated by 
medical literature. They deliberately disparage other parenting styles,
using the extremes to show how they fail rather than the norms which 
show their success. They justify their methods by covering themselves 
with Biblical arguments. These are frequently tenuous and occasionally 
even twist the Scripture to support their own opinions.

It doesn't take long for Mr. Ezzo to misinterpret the Bible. In Chapter 1, 
"Your Baby Needs a Family," Mr. Ezzo discusses the creation account in 
Genesis 1 & 2. Mr. Ezzo finds it significant that when God declared that 
"it was very good" (Genesis 1:31), children were not present. He believes 
that since children were not present they are not necessary and treats 
them accordingly. From this one point, he develops four "Principles to 
Guide Your Family." These are (pages 30-32):
1.  By God's design, the husband-wife relationship is the first social 
    relationship established in Scripture.
	--Here, they correctly point out that the first 2 humans created 
          were a husband and a wife.  Other relationships, such as 
          parent-child, sibling, etc., came later. The point?

2.  By God's design, the husband-wife relationship is primary in the 
    network of dependent relationships.
	--The husband-wife relationship is primary in that is was first, 
	  but that was covered under the first principle. Mr. Ezzo's 
	  point here seems to have more to do with the "dependency" 
	  than the "primacy."  Mr. Ezzo points out the what God created 
	  on one day was dependent on what he created during the 
	  previous days. Mr. Ezzo believes this theory of dependency 
	  applies equally to relationships, therefore the relationships 
	  that came second are dependent on that which came first. I 
	  find this Biblical comparison to be a leap of logic.  Also, 
	  I do not agree that the dependency is necessitated. If a mother 
	  is widowed during pregnancy, does the non-existance of the 
	  husband-wife relationship mean the relationship between 
          mother and child is non-existant? Of course not, but that is
          the logical conclusion of such statements of dependency. The 
          parent-child relationship does, in fact, exist outside of the 
          husband-wife relationship. The husband-wife and parent-child 
          relationships greatly affect one another, but to assert that 
          one is dependent upon the other is a logical fallacy. It is also 
          Biblically unsupported.

3.  The husband-wife relationship must be viewed as the priority 
    relationship in the family.
	--I have a real problem with this. Yes, the husband-wife 
	  relationship must be maintained, but nowhere in Scripture do 
	  I see any evidence that it is a "priority" relationship, 
	  somehow more important than other relationships. This type of 
	  reasoning sets up a false dichotomy in society, giving us 
	  excuse to designate "adult activities" and ignore children 
	  when it is not convenient for us. The prevailing emphasis 
	  throughout the Bible is on complete family units. As a matter 
	  of fact, the parent-child relationship, more specifically 
	  the father-child relationship, is repeatedly used as an 
	  analogy for the relationship we have to God. I think 
          the Ezzos make a serious Biblical error in elevating the
          husband-wife relationship above others. This error drastically 
          taints their entire program with an adult-centered view.

4.  Since marriage is the priority relationship, all other relationships 
    must be subject to it.
	--Here, Mr. Ezzo correctly asserts that parents have authority 
          over their children, he also correctly defines authority as the 
	  God-given right to rule, but this does not come about because
	  the parent-child relationship is subject to the marriage
	  relationship. Parents do not have authority over their children
	  because marriage is a priority relationship, but because *God 
	  assigned that authority to the parents*. This may seem like a 
          minor point, but I believe a correct assessment of where the 
	  authority comes from is essential in applying Biblical 
	  principle to parenting and keeping our attitudes straight.
	  When we understand that our authority comes from God, we get 
	  a sense of the immense responsibility that comes with it, as 
	  well as our accountability to God in carrying out our
	  responsibilities. By asserting that parental authority comes 
	  from a supposedly primary relationship, Mr. Ezzo misses the 
          context of the authority, centers it on human relationships 
          instead of the origin of that authority, and creates a 
	  situation of power for the parents. This is apparent in the 
          overly controlling methods he advocates in his materials.

I am astonished that Mr. Ezzo can draw these four "principles" (I use 
quotes because I do not agree that they are Biblically sound 
principles) from the creation account and 4 words from Genesis 1:31. 
They are not consistent with the whole counsel of Scripture and come 
across as Mr. Ezzo looking for justification for his personal belief 
in the primacy and priority of marriage over other family 
relationships. The specific applications he draws include insisting on:

1.  A weekly date night ~ a night away from baby designed to strengthen 
    the marriage relationship. No where in Scripture do we find even a hint 
    that the presence of a child hinders the continued growth of a strong 
    marriage. This is an idea embraced by our adult-centered society. 
    The Bible teaches that children are a blessing and puts no conditions 
    on it. It would be more consistent to believe that children bless 
    the marriage relationship rather than interfere with it. Also, the 
    weekly date night necessitates supplemental bottles in the routine 
    of breastfed babies. I believe breastfeeding is God-ordained and 
    should not be interrupted for anything less than emergency reasons. 
    In my article, Breastfeeding by Design 
    http://www.geocities.com:80/Heartland/Ridge/1989/famtopics/brfding.html, 
    I present a Biblical argument for breastfeeding without supplemental 
    formula. Even if the bottle contains breastmilk, the basic 
    supply/demand of breastfeeding is interrupted unless mom wants to 
    take time away from her date to pump. This is not consistent with 
    God's design. I am not against dates between spouses, but there's 
    no reason a small baby can't come along. Save the babysitters for 
    when the child is older and can understand his parent's absence and 
    return and will not need to breastfeed while mom's away. This 
    overemphasis on getting away as a must to maintaining the marital 
    relationship comes from the secular view that children are a burden, 
    not the Biblical view that children are a blessing and a reward 
    (Psalm 127:3).

2.  Couch time ~ 15 minutes at the end of the day where mommy and daddy 
    get to talk uninterrupted. It is to take place when the child is awake 
    to demonstrate togetherness. Mr. Ezzo suggest the parents explain, 
    "this is Mom and Dad's special time together.  Dad will play with 
    Ryan afterwards, but Mom comes first." (page 36). First, there is 
    *no* Biblical reason to believe mom (or dad) comes before the family 
    as a whole. Second, the Bible no where dictates such minute details 
    of our lives as a 15 minute period of time after work. Although 
    Mr. Ezzo includes this in his manual as a "suggestion," in practice 
    it is an essential to the PFP program. Third, try explaining to a 
    lonely 2 month old baby that "this is Mom and Dad's special time 
    together" (remember this suggestion is in a book designed for 
    parenting infants up to 5 months old). He just does not have the 
    capacity or the ability to wait. That comes later in his development. 
    The infant left alone is not a welcome member of the family, but a 
    spectator observing the "all important" marriage relationship. Again, 
    the insistence on setting children aside stems from the belief that 
    children are a nuisance. This is society speaking, not God! The Bible 
    teaches that "God sets the solitary in families." (Psalm 68:6). Some 
    translations use "lonely." I think this, and the overall themes of 
    Scripture treating families as units, carries much more weight than 
    Mr. Ezzo's assertion that these 15 minutes will somehow provide the 
    infant with a sense of security about his parents' love for one 
    another and, at the same time, provide essential relational time for 
    mom and dad.

Mr. Ezzo is incorrect in his assertion that the marriage relationship 
must take priority over the parent-child relationship. Although this 
concept attempts to establish parental authority, it skews the Biblical 
idea of the family and misses the context of proper parental authority. 
In this situation, children are not welcome members of the family, 
but appendages to the *important* relationship. It creates a false 
dichotomy of adult world vs. child world. Marriage primacy and the 
adult/child dichotomy is secular in origin. Family unity and an 
inclusive society is Biblical. Those who embrace the Biblical reality 
that children are blessings will not set them aside as unnecessary 
additions to be tended to when the important matters are concluded, 
but will include their children as part of the whole.

By far the most distressing misuse of Scripture is Mr. Ezzo's 
justification for allowing children to "cry it out" (a common 
parenting practice of the last generation that is now being 
questioned by the medical community). Throughout PFP, Mr. Ezzo 
advocates teaching children to sleep, to wait for their next 
scheduled feeding, or to accept forced separation from the parents 
by allowing them to cry for what he believes are short periods of 
time. The short period of time is "5-45 minutes" (page 125), "15-20 
or even 30 minutes" (page 133), "5 minutes or off and on as long as 
1 hour" (page 134). He includes a footnote comment (endnote 9, page 
216) stating that "a normal baby may cry as much as 3 hours total per 
day, with 5-45 minutes of on again and off again crying." While this 
is an accurate assessment, it results from studies of infant care 
methods similar to those outlined in PFP. Dr. Sears, a noted Christian 
pediatrician, believes this much crying is not necessary for a normal 
baby*2.  Other studies show that prolonged crying raises a baby's 
heart rate, often to dangerous levels, and blood pressure while 
decreasing the oxygen content of his blood*3 and even crying for a 
few minutes can cause a baby to become disorganized creating feeding 
difficulties.*4.

Again, Mr. Ezzo turns to Scripture to support this medically refuted 
parenting practice. On page 142, he sites Matthew 27:46 saying, 
"Praise God that the Father did not intervene when His Son cried out 
on the cross." He uses the Father's nonintervention at this pivotal 
moment in history as an example for us to follow in parenting infants! 
I understand that Mr. Ezzo is taking a stance against parents who 
jump, often without thinking, at their children's every whim, and 
certainly we should all strive to mirror God's sacrificial love, but 
**This unique and spectacular event in human history is not normative 
and to apply it to the crying of infants is just unacceptable!!!** At 
the crucifixion, Jesus took all the sins of the world upon Himself. 
He literally became sin. God, being perfect and holy cannot look upon 
sin, therefore *He was forced to turn away and not look upon His only 
Son.*  Grey Gunn, representing Focus on the Family writes 
href="http://www.mailing-list.net/redrhino/Ezzo/FOTF.txt, "We see no 
way to make such an application of this verse without completely 
disregarding its original context and purpose." I agree completely. 
The crucifixion portrays a Sacrifice, not normal interaction between 
parent and child. There are numerous other Bible verses illustrating 
God's response to crying to which Mr. Ezzo could have turned for 
guidance. Let's consider some:

--And it came to pass in process of time, that the king of Egypt died: 
  and the children of Israel sighed by reason of the bondage, and they 
  cried, and their cry came up unto God by reason of the bondage. And 
  God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, 
  with Isaac, and with Jacob. And God looked upon the children of Israel, 
  and God had respect unto them. Exodus 2:23-25
	Here, God hears and responds to the cries of his people

--And Moses and Aaron went out from Pharaoh: and Moses cried unto the 
  LORD because of the frogs which he had brought against Pharaoh. And 
  the LORD did according to the word of Moses; and the frogs died out 
  of the houses, out of the villages, and out of the fields. Exodus 
  8:12-13

--And the people murmured against Moses, saying, What shall we drink? 
  And he cried unto the LORD; and the LORD shewed him a tree, which 
  when he had cast into the waters, the waters were made sweet Exodus 
  15:24-25
	I find this verse particularly interesting. Mr. Ezzo contends that 
	if a baby is hungry (or thirsty) at times other than designated 
	by his routine, the parent must	insist the baby wait until 
	the next scheduled feeding. This is apparently to teach	the
	infant to take a full feeding each time (the incorrect 
	assumption that the last feeding was a snack and snacks are 
	wrong) and to guide his hunger patterns into the routine. 
	Offering the breast to quench baby's thirst is wrong, yet 
	God provides water for his people when they cry to Him.

--And when the children of Israel cried unto the LORD, the LORD raised 
  up a deliverer to the children of Israel, who delivered them, even 
  Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb’s younger brother. Judges 3:9

--I cried unto the LORD with my voice, and he heard me out of his 
  holy hill. Selah.  I laid me down and slept; I awaked; for the LORD 
  sustained me. Psalm 3:4-5

--In my distress I called upon the LORD, and cried unto my God: he 
  heard my voice out of his temple, and my cry came before him, even 
  into his ears. Psalm 18:5-6

--Thou hast also given me the necks of mine enemies; that I might 
  destroy them that hate me.  They cried, but there was none to save
  them: even unto the LORD, but he answered them not. Psalm 18:40-41
	Here, God does not answer cries, but whose? David's enemies, 
	not God's own children.

--LORD, by thy favour thou hast made my mountain to stand strong: 
  thou didst hide thy face, and I was troubled.  I cried to thee, O 
  LORD; and unto the LORD I made supplication.   Hear, O LORD, and 
  have mercyupon me: LORD, be thou my helper.  Thou hast turned for 
  me mymourning into dancing: thou hast put off my sackcloth, and 
  girded me with gladness;  To the end that my glory may sing praise 
  to thee, and not be silent. O LORD my God, I will give thanks unto 
  thee for ever. Psalm 30:7-8, 10-12
	This Psalm is interesting.  David is troubled when God hides 
	his face. His 	response? To cry out to the Lord. Should we not 
	expect an infant to cry out when his parents hide their faces? 
	And what then should be the response of the parents? God 
	turns David's mourning into dancing. Should we not at least 
	try to do the same for our children, assisting them with 
	whatever it is they're struggling, whether it's falling 
	asleep or separation for their parents? And if it's not possible,
	be their to support them with our love? Mr. Ezzo advocates 
	non-intervention, allowing a child, an *infant* to remain 
	alone to work through his troubles himself. God intervenes!

--This poor man cried, and the LORD heard him, and saved him out of all 
  his troubles. Psalm 34:6

--I cried unto him with my mouth, and he was extolled with my tongue. 
  If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me:  But 
  verily God hath heard me; he hath attended to the voice of my prayer.
  Blessed be God, which hath not turned away my prayer, nor his mercy 
  from me. Psalm 66:17-20
	Here, David puts a condition on God's hearing him, whether or 
	not his heart it right. While this is an acceptable condition 
	to place on older children (we do not want to give in to the 
	selfish desires of our children), a newborn is not able	to 
	distinguish between needs, reasonable desires, and selfish 
	desires. A parent must take time to train the child's 
	understanding before he can refuse the child's plea for help. 
	Many parents do not recognize how early a child begins to
	understand this, but Mr. Ezzo incorrectly applies this 
	principle to newborns, turning away their pleas and not 
	displaying the mercy which God shows to David.

--I cried unto God with my voice, even unto God with my voice; and he 
  gave ear unto me.  In the day of my trouble I sought the Lord: my 
  sore ran in the night, and ceased not:  my soul refused to be 
  comforted. Psalm 77:1-2
	David cries to God but is not comforted. Although David feels 
	abandoned by the Lord, He knows that God is there offering 
	comfort. It is David's own lack, the refusal of his own soul, 
	that turns away the comfort. No where in the Psalm does 
	David imply that God chooses cast him out of His presence 
	because of this refusal. Contrast this with Mr. Ezzo, "if the 
	child is not comforted by the baby swing, an infant seat, 
	siblings, or Grandma, consider the crib." (page 150) Infants 
	in the newborn stage do not know someone they cannot see 
	exists, so putting an infant who cannot be comforted into 
	his crib is essentially putting him out of your presence. 
	This is not a godly response to an infant in a particularly 
	fussy time.

Here are some other verses you can look up:
--Psalm 107:6, 13; 119:145-151; 120:1; 138:3; 142
--Matthew 20:34

Certainly, there are times when God's answers to our prayers is, "No," 
and for our own good. There are times when our troubles are so great 
that we feel abandoned by God, but we must keep in mind that God has 
promised, "I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee." (Hebrews 13:5) 
As adults, we can understand that God is present despite our feelings. 
A newborn infant, left on his own to cry cannot find comfort in that 
sort of rational thought. There will be times when we must tell our 
children, "No." When deciding the course of our actions, we must keep 
in mind the developmental limitations of a newborn. Using the events 
of Christ's crucifixion to justify non-responsiveness to the cries 
of a newborn is a blatant misuse of Scripture. It appears that Mr. 
Ezzo has looked to Scripture to justify his own beliefs about 
parenting rather than honestly assessing how God truly responds 
to our cries.

The misuse of the crucifixion is the most offensive misuse of Scripture 
in PFP, but there is one that is much more prevalent.  The entire 
program presented in PFP is based on Mr. Ezzo's interpretation of 
1 Corinthians 14:33, "For God is not the author of confusion, but of 
peace, as in all churches of the saints."  Many versions translate 
"peace" as "order."  While Paul is speaking about proper order in 
church meetings, Mr. Ezzo tenuously applies this verse to parenting.  
He believes, correctly, that this verse implies that peacefullness/order 
is one of God's characteristics.  From there, he extrapolates an 
entire infant management program designed to bring "God's order to 
your baby's day."

The Greek Word for "peace" or "order" in 1 Corinthians 14:33 is eirene.  
Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon says it is "probably from a primary verb 
eiro (to join)" and defines it as:
1.  a state of national tranquillity
	1a.     exemption from the rage and havoc of war
2.  peace between individuals, i.e. harmony, concord
3.  security, safety, prosperity, felicity, (because peace and harmony 
    make and keep things safe and prosperous)
4.  of the Messiah’s peace
	4a.	the way that leads to peace (salvation)
5.  of Christianity, the tranquil state of a soul assured of its 
    salvation through Christ, and so fearing nothing from God and 
    content with its earthly lot, of whatsoever sort that is
6.  the blessed state of devout and upright men after death

Gary Ezzo writes, "Order speaks of routine and scheduling" (page 54) 
yet there is no support in the original language that the "order" or 
"peace" to which Paul refers has anything to do with a routine or 
schedule.  The context of the verse also does not imply so much a 
specific routine for church meetings, but a way to keep the peace 
and harmony God's character requires.  Mr. Ezzo apparently has a 
propensity for order, and that's fine.  Order does remain a godly 
quality, but his application of this verse as the entire basis for 
an infant management program is Scripturally unsound.

Gary Ezzo, himself, points out one problem with this approach.  On 
page 141 he writes, "When someone isolates or elevates any of God's 
attributes above the others, they distort the real meaning of that 
attribute."  Yet this is precisely the mistake Mr. Ezzo makes.  
Throughout the manual, he elevates God's orderliness to a position 
of primary importance in parenting.  Mentions of mercy and compassion 
in his program are limited to insignificant comments, while order 
is emphasized through the routine he develops.  He also implies, 
rather strongly, that no other parenting method can create order 
in the home.

After thinking about this for a while, I decided to count the number 
of time order and it's various synonyms (routine, schedule, and 
structure) are used in PFP and compare it to the number of times 
other attributes of God are used (love, patience, care, compassion, 
mercy, concern).  In doing so, I stuck with only the text.  I did 
not include the titles of the book or chapters or the subheading, 
nor did I count the "questions for review" found at the end of each 
chapter, the sample schedule worksheet found in chapter 7 or the 
various growth charts at the end of the manual.  I was careful to 
include references that referred to the feeding routines and daily 
order and skip over comments that used these terms in other contexts.  
I also did not include the section entitled "Defining the Terms" 
in chapter 2.  This is a discussion of the historical feeding methods 
and, in fairness to Mr. Ezzo, I did not want to count references to 
the strict clock feeding schedules in my tally.  I also skipped 
chapter 10 "Multiples:  The Endless Party" as it was actually authored 
by someone other than the Ezzo's and I did not want to be unfair in 
my count.  This was probably unnecessary, as the chapter is included 
by Mr. Ezzo as accurately depicting his theories, but again, I chose 
to err on the side of fairness to Mr. Ezzo.  This is only my count, 
tallied from one straight reading of the text, not a computer tally.  
I more than likely missed incidents of the various terms I looked for, 
but the count is reasonably close, and as such, serves to illustrate 
my point.  Here are the results:

ORDER:  39
ROUTINE:  124
SCHEDULE:  24
STRUCTURE:  9
***Grand Total:  193

LOVE:  34
PATIENCE:  2
CARE:  6
COMPASSION:  2
MERCY:  1
CONCERN:  1
***Grand Total:  46

note:	when I use ORDER I am including all forms of the word such 
	as orderly, orderliness, ordered, etc.  This is true of the 
	other words, as well.

To be fair, I believe I missed a couple references to "mercy" and  
"compassion."  On the other hand, only some of the mentions of "love" 
were actually in reference to how Mr. Ezzo would apply love in his 
PDF program.  Several of the mentions are referring to the "love" 
demonstrated by demand feeding, which Mr. Ezzo defines as "selfish," 
"permissive," and "indulgent."  These mentions, although I counted 
them, do not actually support Mr. Ezzo's claim that his program is 
"firmly based on God's many attributes" (page 13).  I also neglected 
to count the term "cycle" as I did not notice how many times Mr. Ezzo 
used it synonymously with "order" and "routine" until I was a fair 
way into the book and did not want to take the time to return to the 
beginning of the text to count this term.  Overall, I believe I erred 
significantly in Mr. Ezzo's favor, yet my count still shows that 
Mr. Ezzo elevates order (and it's relatively synonymous concepts) 
at a ratio of **more than 4 to 1** over several other important 
aspects of God's characters and their application to our parenting.  
The following are just a few examples of his overemphasis of order in 
infant management.

--Order and routine are two powerful contributors to a happy, contented 
  baby.  Because of the lack of order associated with the 
  attachment-parenting methodology, the one statement attachment mothers 
  do not hear is:  "My, what a good natured baby you have."  (page 49)
	1.  What ever happened to love and security being powerful 
	    contributors to a happy, contented baby?  Order and routine 
	    are secondary to a loving relationship.  Several years ago, 
	    a study was done to see what language a group of infants 
	    would learn to speak if they were not spoken to.  These 
	    infants were well-cared for in that they had their physical 
	    needs met.  They were changed, fed, kept warm and dry, etc.  
	    They experienced order and routine, yet the study failed to 
	    determine what language they would learn because *all of 
	    these children died before their 2nd birthday*.  These 
	    children could not even survive without love.  What good is 
	    it to talk of the order and routine in their lives?

	    Note:  I realize Mr. Ezzo would not go this far in his 
		recommendations, and to be fair, he does mention the 
		cuddling and nurturing that take place in the normal 
		activities of caring for baby, but he makes several 
		comments in his book that diminish the importance of 
		parental interaction in baby's life while elevating 
		the importance of his routine.

	2.  Attachment parenting does not lack order.  This is a 
	    personal bias expressed by Mr. Ezzo, not a factual statement.

	3.  Attachment parenting mothers *frequently* hear how good 
	    natured their babies are.  I have heard it.  For a time 
	    I participated on an e-mail list with other mothers who 
	    practiced attachment parenting with their infants, and
	    they've heard it too.  Dr. Sears, in his books, documents
	    such accounts as well.

--"You can have structure and still meet all the developing needs of 
   your baby with PDF" (page 50)
	PDF is Parent Directed Feeding, a specific routine and pattern 
	of sleep time/feed/wake time developed by Mr. Ezzo

--Considering that God is orderly in His workings, how is it that we who
  were created in His image think we can succeed with the absence of 
  order?  Routine and order are part of the communicable attributes 
  of God, transferred with His image.  Orderliness is a Biblical 
  virtue (1 Corinthians 14:40).  We see God's order in His handiwork.  
  The planets travel the universe on a course set by God.  The ocean 
  tides move in and out in a pattern that is charted to the minute by
  almanacs.  The four seasons are all part of the earth's sleep/wake
  cycle.  The laws of universal order hold the smallest atomic particles
  in place.

  "The order in nature bears silent witness to the value of order in other 
  areas, such as a baby's routine.  Please note that routine does not 
  equal rigidity.  If God's universal order were rigid, then winter's 
  cold temperatures would stop at midnight on the first day of spring.  
  Fall's colorful pageant would suddenly appear one morning, and then in
  unison the leaves would fall to the ground at the same time.  Universal
  order gives us routine without rigidity.  PDF does the same.  As God 
  has ordained order in the material universe, so also has He placed 
  it in the immaterial universe by way of His principles and precepts.  
  Order complements God's character;  confusion does not." (pages 55-57)

	These 2 paragraphs are Mr. Ezzo's concluding remarks from a 3 
	page section entitled "The Need for Order" and "Universal 
	Order."  No where does Mr. Ezzo	dedicate 3 paragraphs, much 
	less 3 pages, to any of the other attributes of God. The 
	closest he comes is a section entitled "Teaching Your Baby 
	to Love?" (question mark is in the original).  It is 
	approximately 1½ pages in length and rather than emphasizing
	the importance of love in parenting, it emphasizes
	non-responsiveness using love as an excuse. This is 
	clearly elevating order to a position of prime importance.  
	The very mistake he criticizes in others.

	Notice also, how Mr. Ezzo prepares the reader to accept the 
	program he is about to spell out.  First he begins insisting 
	order is needed.  The paragraphs which precede this passage 
	include a fictional comparison between a child who is not fed 
	on a routine with a child who is.  The unsubstantiated 
	assessment that a lack	of routine "negatively impacts 
	[the demand fed infant's] metabolism" is enough to scare 
	anyone into accepting Mr. Ezzo's claims.  After establishing 
	the supposed need, he associates "routine" with godly 
	characteristic of order, then he  brings in the concept of 
	sleep/wake cycles in nature.  By the time he associates PDF 
	with universal order, the reader is generally ready to accept
	his claims.

	By associating PDF with the universal order created by God, 
	Mr. Ezzo creates the impression that PDF belongs to God's 
	order as well.  The implication is that other parenting 
	methods do not.  Indeed, Mr. Ezzo writes, "Working from a 
	Biblical mindset and practicing demand-feeding can never be 
	harmonized since the two are incompatible philosophies."

	Also, when "Asked in a telephone interview if Christian mothers 
	could, in good conscience, practice attachment parenting, 
	Anne Marie Ezzo would only concede that such mothers could 
	probably be excused for their ignorance."*5

  Although the Ezzos deny that their program is the exclusive Biblical 
  feeding method, comments such as these, and the general tone of their 
  materials leaves one believing otherwise. 

In order to accept Mr. Ezzo's assertion that PDF is consistent with 
Scripture while demand feeding is not, we must assume that God defines 
order as Mr. Ezzo does.  So let's examine the specifics around which 
Parent-Directed Feeding hinges to see if it is consistent with God's 
order.  Mr. Ezzo correctly states that the Bible is silent in matters 
of infant feeding, so that leaves much of this open to interpretation.   
As I mentioned earlier, many of the medical sounding claims of the 
program are unsubstantiated.  I will point out some of them in this 
section as they prove a good way to evaluate whether or not PDF is 
consistent with God's design.

Before outlining the actual routine, Mr. Ezzo wants to assure us that PDF 
is flexible.  By this, he means that it is not based on a minute by 
minute clock-timed schedule (ie, baby is fed every 3 hours, not a 
minute sooner, not a minute later), but that it allows for some variation 
in feeding times.  In chapter 7, it is clear that flexibility, according 
to Mr. Ezzo, allows for variations of up to ½ hour in the routine.  Also, 
this routine is not to be flexed into shorter increments than what 
Mr. Ezzo allows.  "During the first ten days to two weeks, the daily 
routine for most new mothers will be a continual repeat of a 2½ to 3 
hour cycle from the end of one feeding to the beginning of the next."  
(page 113)  Note how he times feedings, from the *end* of one feeding 
to the *beginning* of the next.  Doctors and lactation consultants time 
them from start to start.  Unless otherwise noted, I will translate 
Mr. Ezzo's timing into the universally accepted start to start timing 
to avoid confusion.  The smallest increment allowed in the general 
routine of PDF is 3 hours, thus limiting a baby to 8 feeds per day.

Mr. Ezzo does admits that there are situations, which may necessitate 
feedings closer than 3 hours apart, but insists that the parent must 
not establish a routine outside of his specified limits.  "it's OK to 
deviate from the 2½ to 3 hour feeding norm {this is Mr. Ezzo's timing, 
end to start}.  But do not deviate so often that you establish a new 
norm" (page 117)    It is my understanding that in edition 6 of PFP, 
Mr. Ezzo allows for feedings at slightly closer intervals, *up to* 10 
feeds per day.  While the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and 
La Leche League International (LLL) state that 8-12 feedings per day 
is *average,* Mr. Ezzo does not allow for 11 or 12 feedings per day, 
never mind more than 12 which is implied when 12 is considered average.  
Where, in Scripture, does Mr. Ezzo come upon these limits to feeding 
increments?  How does this compliment God's order when the medical 
evidence, is that more frequent feedings are normal, sometimes even 
necessary?  At least one anthropologist believes the spaced feeding 
method is completely outside of God's design.  Kathy Dettwyler writes 
http://www.prairienet.org/laleche/detsleepthrough.html:
	Human children are designed (whether you believe by millions of 
	years of evolution, or by God, it doesn't matter) -- to nurse 
	*very* frequently, based on the composition of the milk of the 
	species, the fact that all higher primates (Primates are the 
	zoological Order to which humans belong, higher primates include 
	monkeys and apes) keep their offspring in the mother's arms or 
	on her back for several years, the size of the young child's 
	stomach, the rapidity with which breast milk is digested, the 
	need for an almost constant source of nutrients to grow that 
	huge brain (in humans, especially), and so on. By very 
	frequently, I mean 3-4 times per hour, for a few minutes each 
	time. The way in which some young infants are fed in our culture 
	-- trying to get them to shift to a 3-4 hour schedule, with 
	feedings of 15-20 minutes at a time, goes against our basic 
	physiology.

While I'm not claiming that all mothers should switch to nursing their 
infants "3-4 times per hour, for a few minutes each time," I do 
acknowledge that her assessment of the composition of milk and it's 
rapidity in digesting is consistent with other research.  Research 
further indicates the composition and rapidity of digestion varies 
from mother to mother, and even with the same mother at different times 
of the day.  Also, milk storage capacity varies from mother to mother, 
as much as 300%, and frequent, unrestricted feeds enhances the quality 
of breastmilk.*6  As we are unable to measure the quantity and 
composition of breastmilk at any given feed, we are unable to assess 
the status of our milk outside of the infant's hunger cues.  Our 
infant's hunger cues also give clues as to our breastmilk storage 
capacity.  It would therefore seem more consistent with God's design 
to feed infants according to these cues.  Research supports this.  
Again in Examining the Evidence for Cue Feeding of Breastfed Infants:
	The evidence is very strong that arbitrary (defined as set by 
	external influences, such as averages) scheduling of breastfed 
	infant feedings is inadvisable for any mother who desires 
	to breastfeed successfully, most especially for the recommended 
	longer periods of up to a year or more. Individual storage 
	capacities of mother's breast is one major factor in the 
	determination of which babies can be fed at long versus 
	shorter intervals, and the proper development of adequate 
	prolactin receptors is another major factor that favors more 
	frequent feedings. Coupled with the evidence that suggests 
	that frequency of feeds --unrestricted-- may influence the 
	fat content of milk in a positive correlation, it appears as 
	overwhelmingly good sense to allow baby to feed whenever he 
	signals the need to, ala "on demand" or "on cue."

	Moreover, it would appear that this is nature's design, and 
	for those who acknowledge a Creator, really God's design, for 
	breastfed infants and their mothers.

With all the evidence stacking up in favor of demand or cue feeding of 
infants as being consistent with the design and physiology of our 
bodies, it makes one question why Mr. Ezzo would insist godly order 
calls for feedings spaced according to the clock.  If it is outside 
of God's design, it must be outside of God's definition of order.

It is also interesting to note that Ms. Dettwyler considers frequent 
feedings to be essential to optimal brain development.  Research 
indicates that breastfed children show higher IQs and academic 
achievements than those fed formula.  Perhaps this is due in part to 
the fact that breastfed infants are typically fed on demand at more 
frequent intervals than formula fed infants, thus promoting better 
brain growth.

The basic characteristic of PDF is the repetition of "three basic 
activities that repeat themselves during the day:  feeding time, 
waketime, and naptime.  Feeding must be first, waketime second, and 
naptime third.  Do not change that order, with the exception of the 
late-night and the middle of the night feedings when a waketime is not 
necessary."  (page 111)  Not only is there no Biblical evidence that 
this order is preferred over another, I know of no scientific or 
medical evidence to support it.  I believe the insistence on this 
order comes from Mr. Ezzo's aversion to nursing an infant to sleep 
which he believes, "makes the baby unnecessarily dependent on mom for 
sleep and keeps him from learning to sleep on his own."  Again, there 
is no evidence to support this claim.  Babies learn to sleep just fine, 
even when nursed to sleep, if the mother remains discerning in her 
parenting, does not continue this practice beyond what the infant 
actually needs, and guides the child through the learning process when 
his own system is ready for it.

In keeping with this concern about infant sleep, Mr. Ezzo believes 
that "usually, within their first eight weeks of life, healthy 
fullterm babies have the ability to sleep continuously for 7-8 hours 
through the night" (page 65).  This is not consistent with medical 
research which shows the average time for babies to sleep through the 
night is 3-6 months.  It is not consistent with the physiology of 
breastfeeding from the infant's standpoint, as noted above.  It is also 
not consistent with the physiology of breastfeeding from the mother's 
standpoint, where the frequency of feeding helps to establish and 
maintain a proper milk supply.  "Much of your success," Ezzo concludes 
the paragraph, "will depend on your parenting philosophy and feeding 
practices."  Yes, I'm sure it does.  The question is how do we define 
success?  Mr. Ezzo apparently equates it with a baby conforming to the 
standards of his program.  There is no Biblical evidence that this 
constitutes successful parenting.  As I mentioned above, the evidence 
continues to stack up against Mr. Ezzo's program, and successful 
parenting and feeding would more accurately be defined by responding 
to and cue feeding infants.

Mr. Ezzo also concerns himself with the details of how an infant 
spends his waketime.  He discourages the parents from giving excessive 
attention to the infant.  He writes, "One thing is certain:  Your baby 
doesn't need to be carried or entertained by you all day long" 
(page 130)  Throughout the day, baby will need to be fed, changed and 
bathed.  Mr. Ezzo encourages parents to make this a time of interaction 
with the infant.  I agree, but I am concerned with his attitude 
about interacting with baby at other times.  "In addition to feeding, 
changing, and bathing your baby, you might have at least one playtime 
a day when the baby has your full attention for 15 minutes or so."  
(page 132)  *Might?!?!*  Consider the alternative:  the only 
interaction baby has with his parents is while they are caring for 
his immediate needs and baby is left alone at all other times.  As 
a matter of fact, Mr. Ezzo gives several suggestions for things baby 
can do alone, including pictures, mobiles and crib/floor gyms to 
entertain himself; swings (be sure not to allow baby to be lulled 
to sleep) and infant seats from which he can watch the world go by 
as a spectator; and of course, the playpen which Mr. Ezzo contends 
is an important part of baby's routine beginning at 4 weeks of age.  
I would never deny the usefulness of the playpen when used with 
discretion.  It allows mom to complete certain activities, such as 
a shower, while the baby is safe.  Mr. Ezzo, however, presents it as 
a necessary part of establishing godly order in the home.  This is 
most certainly an extraneous detail which conforms to Mr. Ezzo's 
personal view of family life and infant management, not a Biblical 
view of order or parenting.

I also take issue with Mr. Ezzo's emphasis on the importance of baby 
alone time.  Sure, baby will spend some time alone, but PFP 
deliberately encourages it in an overzealous attempt to discourage 
child-centered parenting.  What about the Biblical admonition,  
"And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine 
heart:  And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and 
shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou 
walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest 
up." (Deuteronomy 6:6-7).  While I accept that we do not need to 
entertain our children all day, we are admonished to teach our 
children as we go through our daily activities.  How are we to do 
that if they are not involved in our daily activities.  Sure, infants 
can watch activities from a swing or infant seat, but they can become 
a part of them, learning from them, when mom opts to carry her infant 
in a sling or other carrier at least part of the time.  This practice, 
though it brings baby into the family (instead of treating baby as 
spectator), and allows parents the opportunity to follow God's 
instructions for teaching baby is rejected by Mr. Ezzo.  "slinging 
your baby at your side all day long is an artificial way to parent.  
You are not a marsupial, and should not treat your baby like a 
kangaroo joey!"  There is nothing artificial about including baby 
in daily activities.  I believe it is more consistent with Scripture 
than Mr. Ezzo's playpens, crib mobiles and other impersonal parenting 
gadgets.

Mr. Ezzo's program does not advocate Biblical training of children 
in the areas of sleep and independence, but abandons them to figure 
it out by themselves.  It fails to take into account developmental 
stages of infants (these developmental stages, are themselves, part 
of God's design and order).  It creates a false dichotomy between 
adults and children which is not present in the Bible.  It does 
not allow for an infants individual personality, but assumes all 
babies will respond "properly" to the program.  When a baby does not, 
blame is place on the parents or other outside influence.  In order 
to fit all babies into this same, small box, Mr. Ezzo produces a 
program based on a parenting philosophy that is "far too rigid" 
according to Focus on the Family 
http://www.mailing-list.net/redrhino/Ezzo/FOTF.txt.

Other prominent believers have expressed concerns about GFI and 
their materials http://www.mailing-list.net/redrhino/Ezzo/prom.html.  
Concerned with Mr. Ezzo's emphasis on non-Biblical matters and the 
divisive tendency associated with GFI, Grace Community Church, which 
supported Mr. Ezzo as he launched his parenting ministry has 
disassociated themselves from GFI 
http://www.fix.net/~rprewett/grace-ezzo-final.html.  Eric & Julie Abel, 
the couple who originally appeared in GFI videos, has asked to be 
removed from their materials.  Their letter of explanation 
http://home.earthlink.net/~ericabel/GFI.htm reads, in part, "As God 
would further have it, we parted company with this organization in 
1994. At that time, we were mainly concerned about the integrity & 
direction of the company. Since then, we have been exposed to 
additional concerns regarding the curriculum which we can no longer 
support."

Mr. Ezzo states that there is no one right way to parent, yet 
throughout PFP he criticizes other styles of parenting.  These 
negative comments give the impression that Mr. Ezzo believes PDF 
is the only way to bring godly order into your home.  Opposing 
viewpoints are not allowed to be discussed in their parenting classes 
or on their website forum.  Parents are discouraged from allowing 
their children to play with children from families who do not follow 
the GFI principles.  The implication is clear:  GFI is right;  all 
others are wrong.

This has created a rift among Christians that has even divided some 
churches. I know one woman whose church revoked her membership in 
1993 when she expressed concerns with the Prep program and talked 
openly about it to other church members." 
http://www.bhip.com/features/ezzo.htm  While this type of action 
is unusual, the underlying attitude is common with GFI supporters.  
The Christian Research Institute, a noted authority on cults, looked 
into GFI.  They ran a cover story, "More than a Parenting Ministry?  
An Evaluation of Growing Families International" 
http://www.fix.net/~rprewett/CRI.html in their April-June 1998 Journal.  
They determined that, "although it is not a cult, [GFI] has 
consistently exhibited a pattern of cultic behavior, including 
Scripture twisting, authoritarianism, exclusivism, isolationism, 
and physical and emotional endangerment."

Rather than seeing Preparation for Parenting and Parent Directed 
Feeding as a Biblically sound way to parent, I see the opposite. 
Mr. Ezzo has misused, twisted and stretched Scripture to support 
his own ideas of parenting and has ignored Scripture that contradicts 
it. I've noted a couple of the medical discrepancies this causes. 
Others have commented more thoroughly on them. Rather than 
summarize or repeat them, I refer you to the following links. 
A couple of these are statements by doctors and others are articles. 
There are some very serious concerns levied against Mr. Ezzo and 
GFI and I urge you to read them with discretion.

--http://www.mailing-list.net/redrhino/AAP/aneyaap.html ~ 
  Babywise advice linked to dehydration, failure to thrive by Matthew 
  Aney, M.D.
--http://www.mailing-list.net/redrhino/AAP/Unsub.html ~ 
  According to Dr. Matt Aney, there are at least thirty five 
  unsubstantiated and/or false medical statements in Babywise
--href="http://www.mailing-list.net/redrhino/AAP/mediaalert.html ~ 
  AAP ADDRESSES SCHEDULED FEEDINGS VS. DEMAND FEEDINGS
	This statement is apparently in response to the media attention 
	being given to the demand vs. schedule feeding issue generated 
	by GFI materials

The media has also carried stories about _Preparation for Parenting_ 
and _Babywise_

--http://www.mailing-list.net/redrhino/Ezzo/brave.html ~ 
  The Brave New Baby by Thomas S. Giles; reprinted from Christianity Today
--http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/1999-02/27/051r-022799-idx.html
  A Tough Plan For Raising Children Draws Fire, 'Babywise' Books 
  Worry Pediatricians and Others; Washington Post
--http://www.salonmagazine.com/mwt/feature/1998/08/cov_06feature.html ~ 
  Getting Wise to "Babywise"; Salon Magazine
--http://www.bhip.com/features/ezzo.htm ~ 
  In God's hands?: Religious-based parenting program may endanger 
  some infants by KELLY GRIFFITH; Bradenton Herald Internet Plus

As I have mentioned, _Preparation for Parenting_ is not supported in 
the medical literature. As a matter of fact, the endnotes in the 
manual are sorely lacking. Of the 29 notes included:

--18 are from the appendix, "The Secular Mystics." This section is a 
  discourse on secular parenting philosophies,and although and 
  interesting lesson on the history of secular view of human nature 
  (ie the innate goodness of mankind), does not lend support to
  Mr. Ezzo's routine.

--4 more are not actually references, but Ezzo's interjected comments:
	#4 is personal opinion on extended breastfeeding 

	#7 is an brief discussion on the development of infant immune 
	   systems. It could be accurate, but there is no actual study 
	   referenced.

	#8 is personal opinion on the	nonexistence of nipple 
	   confusion. Again, Mr. Ezzo's statement contradicts most 
	   other's. LLL and most pediatricians believe nipple confusion
	   can be an actual problem.

	#9 Is a refuted discussion of "normal" crying periods. Although 
	   it is based on studies, Mr. Ezzo provides no actual 
	   reference. See my footnote 2.

--Of the remaining 7 references, 4 are vaguely related to PDF:
	#1 is related to feeding history, specifically "hyperscheduling" 
	   and does not support to PDF. This endnote also contains 
	   Mr. Ezzo's analysis of what the reference means.

	#2 is an extremist definition of demand-feeding. It does not 
	   illustrate the typical practice of demand feeding, yet Mr. 
	   Ezzo has chosen to use it as the basis for his rejection 
	   of this feeding practice. Rejecting this extremist view does 
	   not necessarily mean one must accept PDF.

	#3 is another reference to feeding history. It is a commentary 
	   on child-centered parenting and lends no support to PDF.

	#11 is a comment on the bonding theory and maternal behavior. 
	    I believe this study to have been refuted by more recent 
	    studies, but either way, it is a comment on bonding and 
	    not PDF.

--And the other 3 attempt to lend direct support to PDF:
	#5 is another historical reference, this time, trying to 
	   establish that infant feeding routines were the norm in 
	   Hebrew society. "According to the definitive work on the 
	   subject, a Hebrew mother did not carry her baby in a sling;
	   instead, she swaddled her young infant and left him in his
	   cradle when attending to her daily chores." This work is 
	   difficult to find, apparently not a major work, and is 
	   refuted by other sources. According to Lisa Marasco, IBCLC,
	   Mr. Ezzo "misapplied it in neglect of statements on the 
	   next page."
	   http://www.mailing-list.net/redrhino/Ezzo/node3.html#concern3.
	   In Infant Feeding in Ancient Israel: A Commentary on the Ezzos
	   http://www.prairienet.org/community/health/laleche/detisrael.html,
	   Katherine Dettwyler, Ph.D., an anthropologist at Texas 
	   A and M University writes,
		The concept of scheduling infant feeding began early 
		in this century with "scientific" approaches to 
		mothering and the desire to raise children who 
		could cope with factory work (I kid you not). . .
		Anthropological studies of breastfeeding frequency 
		in "traditional cultures" shows that mothers may 
		feed children earlier than they are indicating a 
		want/need, because mom has something else to do, or 
		they may try to placate the baby by tying them on their 
		backs when they have something they have to finish (in 
		other words, not everyone drops what they are doing to 
		nurse the baby truly "on demand" in every culture), 
		but that no one outside of industrialized/Western 
		cultures nurses children on a schedule. People simply 
		have no access to clocks, pay no attention to how long 
		it has been since the child last nursed, etc. Kids 
		are carried with the mother as she does her work, and 
		her nursed very very frequently.  My own research in 
		Mali (West Africa) shows that women nurse their 
		children while doing their work, and children are 
		thought to have the absolute right to be nursed 
		whenever they need/want. It is certainly true that 
		Mary, and other women of ancient Israel, and around 
		the world today, work very very hard and have lots of 
		physical labor that they must accomplish each day. 
		NONE OF THEM nurse according to a schedule, however, 
		nor do they do much of anything else according to a 
		schedule except perhaps prepare meals.  They 
		incorporate frequent and irregular nursing into their 
		lives without missing a beat. Short of having a time 
		machine to go back and watch, I think we can safely 
		assume that Jesus was nursed several times an hour, 
		around the clock, slept with his mother, was carried 
		on her back, and nursed until he as 3 to 4 years of 
		age, or older.

	     Again, Mr. Ezzo has sought out the one piece that appears 
	     to justify his position while ignoring that the bulk of 
	     the evidence contradicts it.

	#7 is a La Leche League study pointing out the demand-fed 
	   babies wake "as often as every 2 hours on a recurring 
	   basis" and that they "may do that routinely for 2 years"
	   (page 66). Mr. Ezzo's point is that his feeding plan will
	   condition a child for continuous night time sleep, while 
	   demand-feeding interferes with it.   Although demand fed 
	   babies do not sleep through the night as early as PDF 
	   babies, Mr. Ezzo fails to prove that this is harmful or 
	   ungodly, and as Katherine Dettwyler asserts in her 
	   article Sleeping through the Night 
    http://www.prairienet.org/community/health/laleche/detsleepthrough.html, 
	   it may actually be good for a child to *not* sleep through 
	   the night.

	#10 is a reference to support his statement that "colic is very 
	    rare PDF babies but is intensified indemand-fed babies." 
	    (page 150). The actual endnote reads, "Pediatrician Leila 
	    Denmar believes that 'one of the most common reasons 
	    for crying and fussing is when a baby is fed too often and 
	    his stomach doesn't have time to rest, thus causing 
	    discomfort.'" Notice this doctor "believes." The true 
	    cause of colic is unknown. Studies have failed to prove 
	    a correlation between frequent feedings and the current 
	    stance of the AAP is that "The definite cause [of colic] 
	    is unknown. Demand-feeding is not cited as a cause nor is 
	    any relationship established between colic and demand 
	    breastfeeding."
	    http://www.mailing-list.net/redrhino/Ezzo/graf.html

These references do *not* support Mr. Ezzo's points in the way he 
intends. Giving Mr. Ezzo the benefit of the doubt, perhaps he 
misunderstood the references when he read them. However, several of 
his errors, such as equating demand feeding with colic, have been 
pointed out to him. I do not understand why continues to promote 
his own ideas against the medical evidence.

Mr. Ezzo insists there is medical support for his position, yet he 
refuses to produce it stating, "Yes, the research is available. But 
you will need to take the time to pull it together, if you are 
really interested." I have not looked in the medical journals 
personally, but know some who have looked and could not find it. 
Mr. Ezzo further insists he's had peer review of his materials. 
When asked who these peers are, he responds, "Can you have our list? 
No, these people are too important to be bothered with the trivia 
served up by the critics." (Both quote taken from the Bradenton 
Herald Internet Plus, Q & A with Gary Ezzo KELLY GRIFFITH 
http://www.bhip.com/features/eqa.htm .) I have 2 problems with 
these answers. First, if I had uncovered some new medical evidence, 
I would be anxious to show them to the world. Mr. Ezzo has created 
an entire infant management program around these supposed new and 
better claims, yet refuses to produce them. I have to wonder "why?" 
and until Mr. Ezzo chooses to cooperate, I can only assume the 
answer is, "Because they don't exist." Second, I find these 
responses to be quite rude toward those who are looking for honest 
answers. Many of the questions have come from respected 
professionals attempting to resolve a controversy and get to the 
bottom of the issue in the best interest of infants around the world. 
Yet, Mr. Ezzo refuses to answer and puts them off with insults. I 
would think, for a man whose ministry goal is to instill godly 
character in Christian children, Mr. Ezzo could display more of the 
godly characteristics of cooperation and brotherly love.

In summary _Preparation for Parenting_ begins on the right note and 
with the correct goals. However, in actual practice, this material 
is Biblically tenuous, medically inaccurate, and dangerous. I 
believe Mr. Ezzo has acted in a less than gracious manner towards 
brothers and sisters in Christ and that GFI has discredited themselves 
with multiple medical inaccuracies. I am deeply grieved that the 
secular world is beginning to see this program as a model for 
Christian parenting. I would not spend one penny on materials from 
a ministry that has acted in a manner which endangers infants and refuses
to acknowledge their errors and I urge my readers to avoid GFI 
materials as well. But please, don't take my word for it. Examine 
the evidence yourself.  Follow the links I've included in the article 
and check this page for more:
	http://www.mailing-list.net/redrhino/Ezzo/Files.html ~ 
	Files on the WWW about Gary Ezzo and GFI

It contains links to the articles I've sited above as well as many 
others. You will also find the link to the GFI website where you 
can read their side of the story. Also, Dr. Aney, a pediatrician 
in California, has prepared a packet of information about the 
Ezzos' programs and GFI. If you would like to receive this packet, 
send him an email at ANEYBODY@aol.com.  Include your snail mail address.

------------------------ENDNOTES------------------------
1.	Unless otherwise noted, all quotes are from Preparation for 
	Parenting, 5th edition,	4th printing, spring 1996.

2.	"Many studies state that infants cry 'an average of two or 
	three hours each day.'  I urge parents to beware of drawing 
	any conclusions from these studies of crying. These studies, 
	which are widely quoted, often conclude that it is normal for 
	babies to cry two to three hours a day. I do not personally 
	believe this. In my own practice and personal experience I 
	would certainly not consider it normal for babies to cry 
	two to three hours a day. The reason I caution parents about 
	putting much faith in these studies is that I don't want 
	parents to conclude that it is all right to let their baby 
	cry two to three hours a day. The mothers in these studies 
	were not given any counseling about what to do when their 
	babies cry and were not specifically advised to use all 
	possible mothering skills to keep their babies from crying. 
	In cultures in which an immediate nurturing response is the 
	normal response to an infant cry, the amount of crying is 
	reported in terms of minutes, not hours." William Sears, M.D., 
	_The Fussy Baby, How to Bring out the Best in Your High Need 
	Child"_ (La Leche League International, 1985) pp 49-50.

3.	Gill, Nancy E., Marjorie A. White, Gene Cranston Anderson; 
	(1984) Transitional Newborn Infants in a Hospital Nursery: 
	From First Oral Cue to First Sustained Cry. 
        Nursing Research Vol. 33, No. 4; 213-217.

4.	Marasco, Lisa, Jan Barger; (1997) Examining the Evidence for 
	Cue feeding of Breastfed Infants." 
	http://www.fix.net/~rprewett/evidence.html

5.	Aquilina, Mike; (1998) Crib Notes: Do the Ezzos Know Best? 
	Our Sunday Visitor Vol. 86, No. 49; 6-7.

5.	Marasco, Lisa, Jan Barger; (1997) Examining the Evidence 
	for Cue feeding of Breastfed Infants." 
	http://www.fix.net/~rprewett/evidence.html