Someone sent me this nice quote, which might come in handy for dealing with parents having problems with the Ezzo's method. >I've just finished a great book that our Pastor lent me, and below I've >include a quote you may find interesting. In fact, it may be quite handy >for you to keep on file. >> >excerpt from "Where in the World is the Church", by Michael S. Horton, >Moody Press, 1995 >bottom of p. 194 - top p. 196 > >...It also means that we should not have to justify everything that we >believe or do on the basis of Scripture. At first, that may sound >surprising, so let me explain. The Bible does not tell us how to change >the oil in our automobile, nor does it provide a guide to navigating the >oceans or skies; it does not explain the circulation of blood or the >circulation of Los Angeles freeways. (In fact, nothing really explains >the circulation of Los Angeles freeways.) There are many aspects of >child-rearing that are not covered in Scripture and a great deal about >practical matters of "things earthly" that the Bible has left to human >discovery. > >The Bible is concerned with that which cannot be discovered in nature: >the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it unfolds from Genesis to Revelation. It >does not tell us what we can discover for ourselves but in greater detail >or with greater wisdom; it tells us something we could never have learned >through our own investigation, wisdom, or insight. > >Just today in the religion section of one of our southern California >newspapers, I read an article with the following heading: "Baby Feeding >Based on Bible Stirs Debate." The article discusses a "Bible-based" >guide to strictly scheduled feeding times for babies. Yet the book does >not cite specific passages. In fact, the authors admit that there are >none. But they list basic scriptural principles that cannot be ignored: >"Order, sound judgment, love, patience, care, strong marriages and >sober-minded assessment." Is there any reason that one should regard >these principles as specifically biblical? Could not any person, >Christian or non-Christian, come up with the same list? And does not >this drive to see the Bible chiefly as the answer book, rule book, and >instruction manual for life end up trivializing the real message of the >Scriptures? > >Furthermore, what happens when child psychologists or pediatricians >determine that the "principles" which are deduced from the (supposedly) >uniquely inspired general principles are actually harmful to babies? Is >it another case of the Bible versus science? Of course not. Although >that may indeed, unfortunately, be the way it is seen by those who do not >know the Bible well enough to realize that it does not propose child-feeding >principles, it is rather the case of the Christian author versus science, >while the Bible is a casualty of "friendly fire". > >This is an extreme example of what is a rather common tendency in >contemporary evangelicalism to demand that the Bible be "relevant" by >making it say things in which it does not have the slightest interest. >We trivialize the Scriptures when we ignore its real message, which is >doctrinal, and instead squeeze applications to daily life from verses that >were never intended to yield quite so much "relevant" data. Kathy Dettwyler