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