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:

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 and 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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

Other prominent believers have expressed concerns about GFI and their materials. 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. Eric & Julie Abel, the couple who originally appeared in GFI videos, has asked to be removed from their materials. Their letter of explanation 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." 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" 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."