I've never really written specifically about this issue, but I've glanced across it in other posts and it pops up from time to time in the comment threads. I thought it might be time I shared my thoughts in a topic-specific post. I'll start with the summation and then get into the qualifiers...
I don't have any problem with women choosing to have their children at home...
(now for the qualifiers)
IF...every precaution is taken to insure the health and safety of both mother and child.
IF...a qualified mid-wife is involved in the process.
IF...the woman is willing to go to the hospital if the delivery becomes problematic, unwilling to needlessly "give her life for her child", because that's just ignorant.
IF...religion has no part in the decision to do so.
My ex was very ignorantly adamant about home childbirth (for all the wrong reasons). My philosophy was "don't make immediate concrete plans for future fluid situations". It isn't terribly wise to set plans in stone when you have no idea what the circumstances and ancillary issues will look like when the time actually comes to implement the plans.
(paraphrased)
Her: I prefer home childbirth. That's what I want for our babies.
Me: (knowing she had no clue what she was talking about, but was just parroting) Ummm, ok. I prefer you and our babies to be healthy, so let's cross that bridge when we come to it.
Her: Home childbirth is the best way.
Me: Why do you believe that?
(silence)
Her: Well...it's just better. I don't want to have my children in a hospital.
Me: How do you know it's better? What's that based on?
(more silence)
These ideas had either been poured into her directly by her parents and their like-minded, fundamentalist fear-driven friends, or through the filtered literature and education she received at their hands. She was just a mouthpiece for the ideas of others in the same way the people of The People's Temple and Jonestown were a mouthpiece for Jim Jones. No mind and will of her own on the subject. No set of undiluted or manipulation-free facts upon which to base her "decision". Her "desire" to birth her children at home was a religious thing, her indoctrination coming to the forefront. It was just one of the countless ideas placed on religious pedestals by the Christian homeschooling movement (or elements thereof) and reinforced in her by her parents and circle.
Her father thought all of these bizarre ideas made them the "peculiar" people spoken of the KJV translation of 1st Peter 2:9. That poor translation is yet another reason to dig up the bones of King Jimmy and kick the crap out of them. The Greek phrase there doesn't mean "peculiar" as in "weird". Neither word is even close. It means "purchased by God". Most of the other translations have a more accurate rendering of that passage.
An outright effort was made to be this "peculiar people". It made MFFFIL peculiar alright, as well as creepy, as well as ignorant, as well as a religious ass. Frankly, he was (and most likely still is) just an ass, religious or not. He was so poisoned by the Kool-aid that he wanted his children to be the same religious asses that he is. Any strain of "faith" or religion that requires you to check your brain at the door is toxic. Theirs was, and is, toxic.
Outside of the Christian homeschooling world, some other strains of fundamentalist religion (Christian or otherwise), and secular counter-culturalism, home childbirth isn't very common or popular among people with access to professional medical care. Outside of a couple of relatives in my extended family who are pretty fundamentalist pentecostals, I don't really know of any other home childbirths in my world post-1950. It just isn't a terribly common choice. My advice to Christians who prefer it: Examine thoroughly and make sure that traces of previous indoctrinations aren't contributing to your desire. If they aren't, and the qualifiers I made earlier are being met, I support you 100%. If those qualifiers aren't being met, and any strain of fundamentalist religion (or religion, period) is coloring your decision, I think you're just as reckless and irresponsible as the QFers.
It's your choice. My opinion about it is my choice. Just be responsible.
I want you and your baby to be healthy.
Editorial and commentary on Christian culture, religious and political fundamentalism, and more.
Well stated, Lewis!
ReplyDeleteHere is another qualifier: You have others to clean up the mess for you so your d*mn husband doesn't have to do the job.
Never had the pleasure of doing the home birth thing. There is just something comforting about having 50 doctors running around, making sure everyone stays alive.
Another qualifier: It's your CHILD's birth--not YOUR birth "experience." Pick the safest not the trendiest or "most meaningful."
ReplyDeleteGREAT one, Hopewell. I love that.
ReplyDeleteHaving worked in labor and delivery I'm all for home birth in whatever way, shape, or form that happens and I don't give a crap if the reasons are screwy. Filthy, nasty places full of antibiotic resistant, nosocomial infections.
ReplyDeleteAnd sorry, a neighborhood wench waving a dead chicken over the bed would've been better than 90% of the doctors I worked with.
That said, a fearful mom can't give birth easily. If dad's freaked out, mom clenches like a linebacker. Some people just should not try to give birth at home.
Just my little non-relevant, totally pointless RN rant for the day :)
Really good point. The hubbub of a hospital didn't make sense for my low risk birth and I was SO fortunate to have a choice of 2 birth centers - best of both worlds. I was focused and relaxed and not distracted and had a relatively quick and easy labor. Anecdotally, several friends who have given birth in hospitals recently have had labors that start and stop and ultimately got jump-started with inductions... and the whole cascade of interventions right down to c-sections. I do think fear of pain/birth/complications can be problematic in labor and lead to interventions that wouldn't be necessary if more people had access to a calmer and competent alternative than a hospital.
DeleteGood qualifiers. I fully agree. Have a friend who nearly died because her "midwife" was nowhere worthy of the title.
ReplyDeleteThe whole "trusting God" substituted for using our noggin is very dangerous. Since when did they become diametrical?
One point I differ on: You said "Outside of the Christian homeschooling world, some other strains of fundamentalist religion (Christian or otherwise), and secular counter-culturalism, home childbirth isn't very common or popular among people with access to professional medical care." Which actually should say "isn't common among *Americans*...." Because there are plenty of other developed countries, with ready access to health care who have the majority of their births at home. The Netherlands comes to mind. It's really only a counter-cultural thing in our country and a couple others.
ReplyDelete(I had all three of mine at home. Loved it. ;))
Wow, Connie. Hyperbole much? Ninety percent of the doctors you've worked with are less competent than a completely untrained person waving a dead chicken? I don't read that level of contempt often, even on the internet.
ReplyDeleteIt appears to me that your experience is more than a little colored by your jaded personality. I do not know what has happened to you, but I know many RNs, and not one of them would ever make those kind of charges against "90%" of the medical doctors in practice today.
If your ward is a filthy, nasty place, that has got to be on you. Clean it up then! Wash your hands then! There is no reason for a hospital to be dirty. You are supposed to be washing your hands each time you enter and each time you exit a room, and wearing gloves when providing personal care that might contact body fluids. I hope you follow the rules. Encourage your colleagues to do so as well, and than your hospital will be up to standards.
My daughter got MRSA at her apartment, but was cured of it in our local hospital. The CNAs, RNs, phlebotomists and doctors who worked with her were clean and professional. Okay, the students nurse stuck her multiple times before handing off the IV to a more experienced RN, but other than that, it went well. Every person washed their hands when entering the room, washed their hands when they left, and wore personal protective equipment if they had to be near her wound.
Also, I don't know where you live, but my local doctor is such a thoughtful, ethical, kind-hearted man that I often slip up and call him pastor. My son wants to become a doctor himself, partly because our family physician is that inspiring. I just hope he works with less cynical, more reasonable people than you apparently have at your hospital.
I'm pregnant with #2 right now. Nowhere near QF as I've had 2 husbands (one deceased), was married at 25, and remarried at 35 after having #1 out of 'wedlock.' #2 and #1, however, do share the same father who is my husband.
ReplyDelete#1 was born in a hospital using an O.B. Both pregnancies were/are low risk, but my O.B. treated the whole thing as if I was high risk, dang near insisting an induction from 35 weeks. My son was born at 42 weeks, just 2 days before the doctor would've insisted on an induction for having too big of a baby. My son was just shy of 8 pounds, still in the acceptable range of a newborn.
My daughter is going to be born in a birthing center using a CNM (certified nurse midwife). I decided *against* a home birth because, quite frankly, I'd be the one that would have to clean my house alone. No help at all. Not even a parent or in-law to assist in watching the kidlet while I clean, let alone getting a bucket of bleach out to scrub stuff down. There's no way in heck I want to do that at 9 months pregnant! Also, I'd have to do cleanup to my house... alone, again. Who wants to do that right after giving birth? As it is, I have a difficult time believing that my 5yo is going to have someone to watch him while I labor. Just what a laboring mom wants - a hyper 5yo to divide her attention during a difficult contraction. My other reason for choosing a Midwife instead of an O.B. is that I didn't want someone to insist that if I wanted drugs I needed to have them *right then*. I had the pain drugs pushed on me from the moment I walked into the labor and delivery ward. Of course, that meant that I ended up with Pitocin in order to speed up my labor. According to the L&D nurses, my 17 hours from beginning to end of labor was a very long labor, even too long. Interesting, since I'm now reading stories of women safely in labor for 2-3 days.
Home birthing is NOT for everyone, but I do believe that hospitals and O.B.'s need to take the whole woman into consideration, not just "what won't get me sued." They went into a high risk field in the first place and are doing women and newborns a disservice to our next generation by putting them at risk for things they shouldn't be at risk for in the first place.
My wife tried natural home birth once and will never try it again. One of the reasons you mentioned is that the religious beliefs of not ours, but the nurse midwife resulted in the near death of my wife.
ReplyDeleteThe nurse midwife, a Charismatic, who played up this "spiritual warfare" hype said that the reason my wife went three nights of painful labor at her birthing center was that there was spiritual warfare going on. When I decided to be a man and listen to my wife, we rushed her to the hospital, finding that her blood pressure was 180/110. The baby was then removed by emergency C Section, because she would not descend into the birth canal.
To this day, I seriously doubt that the midwife really had the kind of connection with God that she proclaimed. I am reminded of the song,"Yes, Jesus he knows me, and he knows I'm right. Been talking to Jesus all my life..."
Well, I have to say up front that I am pretty dead set against home birth- and here is why. I realize that almost all the time, childbirth goes without major problems, so long as the mom is healthy and has good prenatal care. But here's the thing- if there is a complication with mom, baby or both, it can come up very quickly and can require immediate emergency medical intervention. I can't be convinced that the experience of home birth is worth accepting this risk. Even being down the street from a hospital could mean the difference between an ok newborn or brain damage, in the event of a sudden cord compression, placental abruption, or the like. I had 8 hospital births, and 7 were very good experiences. In 4 of the 8 instances, situations arose that were completely unexpected that either benefited from medical intervention or required it.(Fortunately everything ended up fine for us.)
ReplyDeleteAnother issue I have with this practice is that when talking with homebirthers, I sometimes get the feeling (not always) that their view of childbirth is that it is all about the mom- her perception of herself, her experience, her performance. To me, the priority is what is safest for baby. I realize that some people who are very informed think home is safer. I respect that IF it is based on their careful interpretation of fact.Unfortunately, I know first hand that many in the homeeverything crowd base their decision on hyperbole and propaganda put out by various leaders in the movement that fosters paranoia and conformity.
I might add that there is nothing that seems to breed more arrogance among a certain group of moms than whether or not one's children were born at home...except for the number of children you have. I have even noticed that in the quiverfull scheme of things, the value assigned to a child born at home is somewhat greater than one born in hospital. ( The most valued child is one born at home and also not vaccinated.)
This might seem paranoid, but let me assure you, in the world of legalistic Christianity, there are points assigned or deducted for every element of life!
I grew up in a quiverful patriarchal family where home birth was God's way of doing birth and hospitals and doctors where seen as bad and ignorant. My mom had the last 9 of her twelve children at home. I was fully indoctrinated on all the blessings and rewards of having "godly homebirths".
ReplyDeleteToday I am a registered nurse. My take on home birth today? I fully support it providing you have had excellent prenatal care and both mom and baby are healthy and you can reasonably get to a hospital quickly in case of emergancy. But having a home birth doesn't make you a better mom or a better person than the person who choses to have a hospital birth. And if there are health problems the safest place to give birth is in the hosptital. Oh, and whatever else you do, leave made up religous doctrines out of your health care decisions.
kateri @ http://dandelionhaven.blogspot.com/
I have known people who gave birth in hospitals, people who gave birth at home, and people who started at home but had to go to the hospital for one reason or another.
ReplyDeleteI think an important thing for women to remember is that, once labor begins, they may change their mind on whether to go to the hospital and get pain relief. And that is fine! One friend of mine who tried to labor at home went into great emotional distress at about 18 hours and the midwife insisted she go to the hospital. It was the right choice. If she had been dead-set 100% must not set one foot in the hospital from the start, the whole ordeal would have turned out much more stressful for her. She was willing to roll with the punches. And guess what? She got an epidural and finished with her natural delivery. Things were fine.
I have to disagree a little bit with those who say that it's all about the baby and not about the mom's experience. I agree that the baby's safety comes first. However, the mom's experience is ALSO a HUGE factor. Ultimately, an easy delivery is indeed better for baby, and some moms are more relaxed (and thus able to give birth quicker) at home. Also, some moms feel they well be able to rest better post-birth if they are at home, and being well-rested is also essential to caring for baby. And finally, the idea that mom's feelings don't matter because of the kid, is a little too close to QF ideas for me to wholly swallow it. Just my honest opinion, ladies and gents.
So, in conclusion, I agree with Lewis that certain qualifiers should be met before a woman attempts homebirth. I, on the other hand, will be hooked up to an epidural as early as possible with doctors and nurses hovering. And that, my friends, is what will make ME at ease and able to labor happily. :)
I think it unlikely that patriarchal men in the QF movement approve home birth so that mom will have a better experience, or because they believe it's safer for the baby somehow. Now, they may cite that as their reasons, but the number one reason will probably go uncited.
ReplyDeleteThey are cheap.
They have little money and lots of kids. Should you have such great insurance coverage (and most have none) that you only paid $500 out of pocket, that's still $500 they don't have.
I suspect that's the real reason that Christmas isn't "biblical" and home church (with never a special activity to pay for and no offering plate passed around) are also the "biblical" way of doing things.
And I accused Connie of being jaded! yikes
Two counterpoints.
ReplyDeleteIn reply to Laura about being deadset against home births because of emergency complications - most complications that require medical attention/intervention give enough warning that a competent caregiver (midwife, OB, etc) will recognize it and have plenty of time to react. My son was born in the hospital with severe meconium aspiration syndrome. My midwife recognized the symptoms when my water broke a few hours earlier and had put the NICU team on standby. We would have had plenty of time to get to the hospital had I been laboring at home - because she was competent and experienced enough to know what to watch for and what to do about it. I would agree that a home birth more than 20-30 minutes from a hospital is unwise at best, and puts even more of a burden on the midwife to be more on her game - catching warning signs earlier. I doubt there is any actual statistics or study, but from all I have read and heard (which is substantial in this field), almost all out-of-control complications and deaths occur when either the parents or the midwife are frankly stupid (which includes ignorant).
shadowspring, I think money does factor into a lot of patriarchal "fads". However, I think fear of establishments play into it much more, starting with the government of course, and trickling down to other publicly recognized establishments, be it a church or a hospital. There is something tantalizing and "safe" about being off-the-grid, however illusionary that status is.
Some midwife organizations won't publically release homebirth mortality rates.
Delete"I have to disagree a little bit with those who say that it's all about the baby and not about the mom's experience. I agree that the baby's safety comes first. However, the mom's experience is ALSO a HUGE factor. Ultimately, an easy delivery is indeed better for baby, and some moms are more relaxed (and thus able to give birth quicker) at home. Also, some moms feel they well be able to rest better post-birth if they are at home, and being well-rested is also essential to caring for baby. And finally, the idea that mom's feelings don't matter because of the kid, is a little too close to QF ideas for me to wholly swallow it. Just my honest opinion, ladies and gents."
ReplyDeleteQuoted for truth. A safe, healthy, happy mother makes a safe, healthy, happy baby. Opposing the two interests only hurts both.
The idea that the mother's experience is irrelevant smacks of patriarchy. It reduces women to incubators. I've had enough of that rhetoric from my fundamentalist upbringing, thanks very much.
If I'm about to give birth, my first priority is to survive. Then the baby's survival. (God, why does this sound like such a controversial idea? Death in childbirth is BAD. Women survive stillbirths, horrible as they are, and go on to be great mothers of later children. I'll warrant most fathers would rather suffer a stillbirth than lose their wives.) Then comes the health of both of us. Then the lack of trauma in delivery. Then all the other things like how nice the nurses/midwives are, how good the facility is, who's present, etc.
QF says all that matters is having more children. QF says that's what women exist for, and worrying about their health and safety is superfluous. QF says women should be glorified for dying in childbirth, because they have fulfilled their whole purpose and are expendable as long as the baby survives. I feel certain I'll be called a heartless, selfish babykiller because I'd prefer not to die. And that's a shame, because I'd want my adult daughter's safety cared for first if she were giving birth. The worst of all outcomes would be to lose her. Is it selfish to prefer to keep one's daughter than lose her to gain a grandchild?
shadowspring: Correct on both points-- hyperbole and rant :) Thought I made that clear.
ReplyDeleteI have four kids. The first three born at home in water with a qualified midwife and one born in the hospital. I'm happy with both. As a woman who has had three home births, I agree with you qualifiers Lewis except perhaps the last one, I'm not sure if I agree with it entirely as in if it's a religious preference rather than a dogmatic belief I'm ok with it because then I believe someone could still change their decision if it's based on a preference rather than a dogmatic belief.
ReplyDeleteActually for my last home birth the midwife was still on her way to my house when I birthed the baby, but she was on the phone with us and she was *almost* there as in five minutes away. Even after doing that I don't recommend an "unassisted" home birth. Of course mine was not planned and she was making sure even on the phone that I had not lost too much blood etc. I birthed that baby without her because I had to, he was ready, but not something I'd choose to do for sure.
Lewis,
ReplyDeleteYou are for home birth.... "IF...religion has no part in the decision to do so."
I was wondering...... What if your religion encourages you to consider home birth.....
"IF...every precaution is taken to insure the health and safety of both mother and child.
IF...a qualified mid-wife is involved in the process.
IF...the woman is willing to go to the hospital if the delivery becomes problematic, unwilling to needlessly "give her life for her child","
Is religion the problem in general, or is it a specific type of religion?
Not reading all the comments... I have had three births. Two at home. One in the hospital.
ReplyDeleteI planned on the first birth to be at home, but was transferred to the hospital when my professionally trained midwife recommended the transfer. It wasn't an emergency transfer either. I had been in labor over 24 hours, with horrible backlabor without progressing. She recommended the transfer for the purpose of getting an epidural, so I could rest.
My second birth (same midwife btw), I educated myself and was able to have a successful homebirth. I had two "emergency" situations pop up during that labor and birth, and my midwife was trained exceptionally well, and handled the situations beautifully. I was not scared or fearful for my life or my babies. She had been trained well, and knew exactly what to do.
In fact, I have seen the same exact situations that I went through at home, played out on reality TV, in a modern hospital and the doctor botched up what was such a simple "emergency" and made it into a terrible life threatening problem that could of been avoided if the doctor wasn't trained to freak out.
I agree Lewis, that all the reasons your ex wanted to home birth were the wrong reasons. But in my area, home birth is pretty popular.
When I had my first birth 9 years ago, it was a slightly odd thing to do. Now, my hip and chic mama are really into it. It's more about woman empowerment, than being a peculiar people. ;-)
That said, if I have another baby, I am going to carefully consider my options....and might opt for a hospital. However, I know what to look for in a doctor and in a hospital based on my experiences with a hospital, and two home births. I might go for a birthing center. Or I might go for a hospital birth, with a midwife acting as a dula.
And I can say that from my hospital experience to my home experiences, the home was by far the easiest, and most peaceful experience. I was treated humanly, and made to feel like a queen. Which really helped relax me during my labor, and was better for my baby.
My viewpoint was respected, and not pushed away. I was sort of treated like a stupid child in the hospital. But at home, I was treated compassion and respect. My midwife was my advocate. When my husband didn't understand things, (Let's face it. Men don't *get* birth at all. They can speculate. They can be logical about it. But they never went through it.) she wouldn't allow for his ignorance to determine how things should go.
-Non Legalistic Home birther (continued...)
Good point, simplymerry!
ReplyDeleteAnyone outside of the family system is a potential threat when you truly are neglecting/abusing people in your family. Even if the neglect is really a consequence of poverty, the fear that some outside authority will come in and declare the situation in need of change (or worst, remove the children from the home) is a valid one.
Of course the smart way to deal with these deficits of provision and care would be the fix the situation so everyone's needs are met, but then the entire religious system is built around dad as god, so how will he keep up that status if he is reprimanded by society in any way?
It's such a hopelessly messed-up system.
(continued from Non-legalistic home birther)
ReplyDeleteThe Hospital wasn't horrible. I had a great doc, (who trained my midwife btw) and wonderful labor and delivery nurses.
However, the postpartum nurse was horrible! She made me think my first baby had an incurable disease, and poked her with needles all through the night taking blood samples to see if she was dying. All because she was reluctant to latch on to me or a bottle.
Come to find out, the next morning, when the pediatrician came to give her a check, he told me it was "normal" for babies not to be interested in eating the first 12 hours of life. And given the fact that I had narcotics pumped through me during labor, that could of made her sleepy as well.
I was in tears the whole night thinking she was going to die. I wanted to sock that nurse! I couldn't wait to get home. If I had known the nurse was being such a jerk, I would of called my midwife, who would of come in the middle of the night, and reassure me, and probably put that stupid nurse in her place.
Also, when I was immersed in the quiverful doctrine, it was my midwife that suggested my body needed a break from child bearing. She was the one that told me that my body needed at least two years between births (not conceptions) to recuperate.
Also, when I was in the middle of huge panic attack (caused from spiritual abuse) and had no transportation, and had no family or friends to help out, I called my midwife, who dropped everything and came and sat with me for two hours and talked with me and made sure I was calmed down. This was not an appointment. This was "extra".
She also suggested that once the baby was born, that I get some anti-depressants to help me get through the post-partum depression that she knew was probably coming.
I don't know of any doctor or practice that cares that much about a mom's well being.
Sorry, I had to speak out on this. I am tired of home birthing getting lumped in with quiverful and patriarchy. Just because quiverful patriarchy likes it, doesn't mean it's a dangerous practice, and that most people who have a homebirth are quiverful and patriarchal, and wacky fundamentalists.
During the time I homebirthed, I was the only one that I knew who followed the quiver full doctrine. Most of my homebirthing friends (not many) practiced birth control.
And other mothers in my midwife's practice were foreigners, and other religions, including Hindus, Muslims, Hippies,New Agers, single mothers,etc. At that time 9 years ago, she had very few "fundamental" Christians.
I also have a friend that is quiverfull, and she has hospital births. Only hospital births. She has never birthed at home. She is in her eighth pregnancy now (She got married a week after my husband and I , and we only have three kids)
(continued)
(continued part 3, from non-leagalistic home birther)
ReplyDeleteAlso, it might be cheaper to birth at home, than in a hospital.
But we did it without insurance once (and we would of went to the hospital if we *had* to. My husband was between jobs then, and the insurance had not kicked in yet, even though he had a job that gave benefits. He had just been hired on when I went into labor) and it cost us $2,000 out of pocket. It was far cheaper to spend the $500 co-pay when we birthed at the hospital (we had insurance then) then it was to pay out of pocket to the midwife without insurance.
I am no longer quiverfull, and patriarchal, and a legalist. But I *can* separate the practice home birthing from the movement. Home birth is a separate entity. And most midwives probably never even heard of the doctrine. They just need clients, and they take them on
I think it's safe to say, that at least 90% of legally practicing midwives lean more towards New Ageish ideas, are feminists, and are earth mother, hippy types. There are fundamentalist midwives...but in my experience they are rare.
I happened to have a Christian midwife. But when I hired her, she was a new Christian...only about two years. She had been practicing midwifery before then.
Anyway, I rambled enough.
Simplymerry, I agree. Suspicion of organizations can be a very important factor in these people's decisions.
ReplyDeleteI just think people should be realistic about the experience. I have known 3 people who attempted home birth, and only one of them made it all the way to delivery without a hospital trip. To me, that is not a stellar recommendation for the process. I know that's terribly biased or me (especially since many on this blog have done it successfully). But it's hard to have much enthusiasm for the process when i've seen even staunch home-birthers give in and head to the hospital the majority of the time.
Just a question: How do the Q/P men treat it when they themselves have a medical issue? How likely are they to go to a medical professional as opposed to home care?
ReplyDelete@Benjamin...
ReplyDelete"I was wondering...... What if your religion encourages you to consider home birth....."
Then the belief system needs to be examined thoroughly. No belief system, group, church, or movement, should have a more influential voice in the birthing process than the health of mother and child. Personally, if my church/group/belief system interfered or attempted to have a voice in the process, it'd be time to leave.
ANY belief system - Christian or otherwise.
Lewis,
ReplyDeleteI know that no one knows what you did with my question, but you do.
The character and integrity you espouse is showing its foundational weaknesses, all for the sake of what?
Hee hee, I'm going to chalk this up to regional differences again. Homebirth is HUGELY popular here, mostly NOT for religious reasons. In fact, we have one of the few midwifery schools in the nation, and it's quite prestigious world-wide. EASILY half of my friends with kids have had homebirths. Easily. Probably more. And plenty of family members as well. I had one in the hospital and one at home, myself. I personally believe that homebirth is as safe, even safer, than the hospital for normal healthy pregnancies and births. I had an emergency during my homebirth that was expertly handled by my midwife with minimal invasion, unlike how it would have been handled by litigation-fearing hospitals. :) It's par for the course in many countries that have access to health care. My cousin, who lives in England, can attest to this. :) I did my research and the studies bear me out on this. I'm open to having a homebirth again should the Lord bless us with another child. I'm also open to a hospital birth, though, because while I had a crappy experience for my hospital birth, I am a lot better informed now and I think I could go through it unscathed. It really just depends on how things go!
ReplyDeleteLewis,
ReplyDeleteYou stated, "Then the belief system needs to be examined thoroughly. No belief system, group, church, or movement, should have a more influential voice in the birthing process than the health of mother and child. Personally, if my church/group/belief system interfered or attempted to have a voice in the process, it'd be time to leave.
ANY belief system - Christian or otherwise."
My question to you is this.
Who or what determines whether the health of the mother or child is in danger or compromised? Who determines those parameters?
I should have mentioned, I don't only have Christian friends :P haha...many of my friends who run the gamut of political and religious beliefs have had homebirths, not just one particular subset.
ReplyDeleteI would like to say, though, that a dogmatic belief in it leads to bad things for mom and baby. I HAVE met people who believe that it would be a religious failing to not homebirth. Or, they are super suspicious of doctors to the point of demonizing them. I agree that it IS a problem, and homebirthing out of ignorance and not information is very dangerous.
@Benjamin...
ReplyDelete"I know that no one knows what you did with my question, but you do."
Other than answering it, actually I don't. You're free to enlighten me.
"The character and integrity you espouse is showing its foundational weaknesses, all for the sake of what?"
I've no idea what you're getting at or what point you think you're making.
"Who or what determines whether the health of the mother or child is in danger or compromised? Who determines those parameters?"
A qualified medical professional or midwife. I think that implication is pretty clear in the post.
Lewis,
ReplyDeletePlease forgive me for my comments. I didn't realize that my comment was already posted. I assumed that you only answered a certain portion of my comment in a certain way. I jumped to a conclusion when I shouldn't have.
I was wrong and ask your forgiveness.
As to the medical professional or midwife, there are instances where personal consent cannot override the medical professional. Some decisions are left in the hands of the individual. And, yes, some individual choices end up not being the best or right one, through no fault of any one.
As easy as it is to want everything to work out right for every person in every situation, some things remain outside our control, regardless of our thought on the matter, or some individual's thought or some group's thought.
Or are we in this country to the point where all decisions should be made for us by someone else?
@Benjamin...No worries.
ReplyDelete"Or are we in this country to the point where all decisions should be made for us by someone else?"
Ideally, individuals will make informed and responsible decisions. The primary problem with the religious segment of homebirthers is their decision(s) being made for them by the religious group.
As long as I'm coherent I'll make my own decisions, but on matters of health, I'll certainly seek the counsel of qualified professionals. They generally have a better grasp on the gravity of a health issue.
For P/QF women, all decisions are made for them - whether by the husband, the belief system, or the peer pressure of the movement. I'd love to see that change.
Lewis,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you about personal decisions.
And, while true that someone may be a professional in a certain field, seeking their counsel should never usurp my personal responsibility to make an informed decision. I'm even responsible for recognizing when my knowledge and understanding is lacking and still making the decision to follow the advice of a professional, even if I have to seek the counsel of several.
Such a procedure as this stems from a love of God, as you spoke of earlier. My love for God as my Creator causes me to desire optimum health for my body, which he created and which he desires to reach out to others through. My Heavenly Father desires to use me, His child, in ways that I could not if my health is failing through my own neglect of ignorance. So my health is definitely a love issue toward God and my neighbor, therefore, it is imperative that I properly recognize and implement that responsibility with knowledge, understanding and wisdom.
(Mrs. Taft:) "Or, they are super suspicious of doctors to the point of demonizing them."
ReplyDeleteI had forgotten about this one. But it bears out what I was concluding after my last comment, which shadowspring also hinted on - it's all about control. Fear of losing control. The illusion of having control over a home birth is an awful one. Sure you don't have to comply with hospital regulations (such as i had to have a hep/saline lock), but it doesn't give you any control over the medical condition of the wife or child.
But then that's where they call upon the trusting of God. Everything in their world is either under THEIR control, or is there is acknowledgably no way to control it, then it's under GOD'S control. And if anyone else dares to try to take control, damn them to hell, those demons. Usurping authority, stealing what isn't theirs, vain and foolish and denying God and His power!
If I may pitch in, Mr. Bush. While your beliefs encourage, almost mandate, a proper care of your body, using wisdom, counsel and understanding... I think Lewis is still right in not allowing religion a say in this one.
ReplyDeleteThere are many belief systems that do not encourage proper care of one's body. In this particular case, p/qf glaringly does not encourage proper care of women's bodies, particularly concerning childbearing.
While obviously a person's belief system is going to have a role in his personal decisions, to give religion free rein when debating life decisions is dangerous. You can't give religion a free ticket.
Not to put words in Lewis' mouth here, but I think there would be a distinction between, if I may call them, philosophy and religion. I think we all have a base philosophy that human life is important (and that can be based on a theist philosophy), and we can probably extrapolate from that that proper care of one's body is important. Religion, however, tends to make demands based upon flimsy arguments. The former would have you make intelligent and individualized decisions based on foundational principles (such as, it is important that my wife and baby have a safe birth). The latter would have you follow precise standards based on stringent principles (I must not put my wife under a doctor's control).
...as you can see, doctrines may be more accurate a term than religion, but in this case, their religion is mainly just doctrines.
[And I apologize if this is hard to follow. tried to make it clear, but i have a severe case of preggy brain. :P ]
I had a home birth in part because a midwife attended planned homebirth results in lower infant mortality than a hospital birth. One must note though that an unattended homebirth has an almost ten times higher mortality rate though. There are some studies that try to indicate otherwise but they neglect to exclude births that were never planned to be at home. Obviously if no one meant to be at home things probably aren't going to go well.
ReplyDeleteSo for me I wanted what was safer for my baby, religion had nothing to do with it. It was indeed a much better experience as well though and a better experience is better for baby, less birth trauma and I bonded better/ faster.
Cost was a factor to as my insurance only covered birth complications and 2500 is a lot better than 10k but if I had thought it would be better for my baby an situation the cost wouldn't have been a factor.
Wrong. You didn't factor in that hospital births are more common in this country than home births. Of course the mortality rate will be higher. Note, too, that some of those deaths were due to home births gone wrong. Seconds count in medical emergencies. A midwife is safer than alone, but still not near as safe as a hospital birth.
DeleteThe home birth culture is nothing but pure Woo. This culture ignores/skews facts and discourages critical thinking skills. Its on par with anti-vaccers.
My decision to give birth at home three times was based largely on the fact that all hospital births are attended by obstetricians. Back when GPs made house calls, OBs used to be the people who were called in when labor went wrong. The obstetrical game plan for normal labor is to expect that anything that can possibly go wrong is about to happen and attempt to forestall it. The problem is that in a normal labor and birth, applying these precautions tends to cause more problems than it solves. It boils down to iatrogenic complications.
ReplyDeleteHere's a basic example: Nearly all U.S. hospitals still demand that women eat nothing during labor. This is based on the possibility that the labor might require a C-section, the mother might be one of the minority of C-section patients who requires total anesthesia, and in that case she might be one of the people who vomit while deep under, and then if there is food in her stomach she might aspirate it.
Midwife Ina May Gaskin cites a study of how many times this actually happens per number of births per year in the U.S. It turned out to be 1 in--I don't recall the exact number, but the word "million" was in there. This tiny chance of something going wrong is why no woman is allowed to eat anything in labor in most U.S. hospitals. Meanwhile, how many women have "failed to progress" and been subjected to medical interventions because they were hungry and needed something more substantial to keep up their strength than sugar water in an IV? AFAIK there has never been a study of this issue.
The second major reason is that in my experience OBs show an irrational need to control labor. Anything that makes labor predictable is by definition good. Many of these measures are not the best choice for most mothers and babies, but they give the OB a sense of control, which translates to a feeling that labor has been made safer, when it really hasn't. For example, I have read firsthand accounts by women who were subjected to episiotomies for no other reason than that the OBs always cut an episiotomy. And many, many accounts by women who were pressured to induce because their estimated due date was only a week away and the baby might explode or something if he or she was not made to fit the estimate. And so on.
Finally, while there are woo-woo midwives out there, OBs have their share of wrongheaded damnfool notions and many more tools with which to do damage. I had one tell me that just by looking at my fat arms and fat belly he knew that my vagina must be full of fat deposits and therefore I could not give birth without his specialized tools, such as forceps and a scalpel. This is a load of nonsense, but many OBs are taught it in school.
Jenny Islander
I would like to clarify two things-first, I certainly don't mean to suggest that the mom's birth experience is unimportant. Certainly not! My birth experiences remain some of the most joyous moments of my life! What I mean is, to me, I see it as a choice between making some compromises in terms of my birthing environment for the potential safety of my baby. That is because I believe that the potential risks outweigh possible benefits. I cannot be convinced that there are not complications that would become critical without medical technology available in less than 20 or 30 minutes. I think that there are some instances where kids born at home might have benefited from some medical intervention that they did not receive.(Please know that I do not think doctors are all knowing and all seeing gods-but I am thankful for the good ones that are out there and the skills and technology they use.)
ReplyDeleteMy second point is that I cannot imagine a time that I would be less inclined to want to have to be moved than late in labor. So to me, that was part of my decision. I am more comfortable knowing that I am where I will be until the big event happens!
Anyway, that is just my opinion and what has worked well for me. As long as home birth advocates don't assume a holier than thou attitude about it,or think that a baby born in the hospital belongs to the government, or any other nonsense, I have no issue. Just be careful, be informed, and think clearly!
Where I'm from, home birth is actually a feminist concept. Someone above said it's about "women empowerment", among other things. I've found this to be true. Most of the women who promote homebirths in this are aren't even Christians. But perhaps you are around a different group of people, Lewis? Here it's about women educating and empowering and supporting women and their bodies.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I wanted my births my way, I was educated and knew the danger signs, I knew what my body was capable of, it was MY choice uninfluenced by others (my own mother had all 5 of her kids in a hospital), and I would do it that way again in a heartbeat.
Someone else mentioned excellent care. This is the other reason I birthed at home. My midwife spent an hour at every appointment with me. We talked about everything, she let me vent, advised me on pre-natal nutrition, and made sure I had the best of care. She came to my house for the birth, she stayed there for 12 hours afterward, she came back the next day, 2 days later, 1 week later, and anytime I needed her. She did breastfeeding coaching and respected my personal beliefs, preferences, and my body. She never told me I was or was not "allowed" to do anything. The couple times I went to an OB for insurance purposes, I was thoroughly disgusted. Guess I'm spoiled. ;) Honestly, I, too am tired of seeing homebirth lumped in with the crazies (as i am homeschooling or eating healthy or living off the land).
BTW....it has to be *the woman's choice*. Her FREE choice. No man should ever EVER make that decision for her. The End.
ReplyDeleteWhile some babies born at home do die that might've lived had they been born in a hospital, others die in the hospital that might've lived had they been born elsewhere. Before I chose a home birth, I read through a study by the British Medical Journal about home births. They found that in low-risk women, the death rate for babies was the same, or lower, in a home birth than at the hospital.
ReplyDeleteMy mother was threatened with a c-section when giving birth to me. There was nothing actually wrong, she just was stuck at 8-9 cm. She didn't want to be sliced open without a good reason, and managaed to push me out. Unfortunately, her cervix tore in the process, which nobody noticed. They discovered the injury after her cervix gave out at 34 weeks along with my sister. The little girl's lungs weren't developed enough and she only lived a few weeks.
I think that it is likely that if the doctor had been more patient, my mom's cervix might have stayed intact and not caused her to go into labor so early. The doctor's impatience may have led to her death.
I'd like to add that if I were in an area without experienced home birth midwives, I would've used a midwife at a birth center. I actually started out at one with my first child, but the midwife I saw both times was a jerk and I never wanted to see her again.
ReplyDeleteSome states have licensing law problems that may make things worse. For example, my state doesn't license non-nurse midwives and I don't think many nurse-midwives want the legal risks of home births. This means that women have to choose between an illegal midwife (mine was licensed in another state) or an unassisted home birth. I think it would probably be better to license other types of midwives, to give women more options.
The birth center I mentioned above had trouble getting opened, despite being right next to the hospital and being staffed with CNMs.
I only have one child, my son who was born in hospital when i was 37. I was induced several days before the due date but i was on blood thinners due to two clotting genes that could have caused me to clot or the placenta to clot. I made it very clear to the registra that i would only consider a c section in a life threatening emergency on advice of a senior hematologist. The arrogance of the registra was amazing saying my baby wasn't happy - no distress - just wasn't going fast enough for her- said we are having the c section - through my gas filled brain i remember saying strongly and clearly that we would NOT be having a c section. Lucky for me her shift finished and the replacement registra was great. I based my care on the senior medical staff and think that you have to consider all of your own health factors first before you can decide on hospital or home birth. I had other tell me that for religious reasons i shouldn't take the blood thinners as they are based on cells of a pig and as a muslim that minute chance that i got the real cell not the artificially created ones was too horrible for them to contemplate. What they had not even considered was that the gene that causes clots in the placenta can happen even at 6 months and cause the baby to die. Thank god my sheikh is sensible and down to earth and said take it - you have to look after life and if you know of a problem and can stop it occurring then do it! I know that i could not live if i had not done everything i could to ensure my baby was born alive and healthy. While i follow a religious leader for information as to the rules of practicing Islam at the end of the day i am accountable on judgement day for my actions. A healthy child will always outweigh the chance of something najis(religiously impure) going into my body, when that medicine is to safe guard my life and the life of my child.
ReplyDeleteSimplyMerry,
ReplyDeleteI agree that the term religion is a broad stroke. It might be helpful for Lewis to make some kind of distinction or define the term "Religion." Obviously, this is his blog and that's up to him.
With that said, regardless of the issue, my relationship with Jesus demands that I address every area of my life with His mindset and thoughts. After all, doesn't the Creator have the right to set the rules for the operation of His Creation? My responsibility is to, in the words of Jesus, to "judge righteously, not according to appearance" using the wisdom He has provided me as His Child.
Significantly, too, is the truth that the Redeemer, Jesus, paid a price to purchase me, body soul and spirit. Since I belong to Him, am I to bristle at the idea that God can tell me how to think and act in my life?
This includes the area of giving birth to children. While I will never give birth, my marriage to my wife and my relationship to God compels me to address this issue from a heart of love, seeking the best for my wife and our child she carries.
This responsibility stems from the truth that I will one day stand before God and give account for how I lived my life. This accounting will be given with His standards, not mine nor the standard of anyone else, individual or group. So, it is in my best interest, as well as the best interest of my wife and child, to earnestly seek His mind on the subject according to the standard He has made known and preserved for me.
Also, this does not preclude me from consulting my wife, needing to hear her thoughts of wisdom and expertise on the matter. To fail to do so would be an unloving act, since her state of mind, as well as her thoughts and desires are vitally important. After all, she's the one giving birth, not me. And it wouldn't be the first time I have listened to her, knowing she was right. God has used her on numerous occasions to save me from myself, so my ear is inclined to her.
The fact of whether I am in agreement with anyone else or not is not an issue. While I am to respect and submit to authority, nowhere does God require me to follow the lead of anyone stepping over the edge of a cliff. Does this make some angry at me? Most definitely! Nevertheless, Love demands that I seek the mind of God for everything, not the mind of man.
Is religion the same as God? A distinction might be helpful.
Anon 4:54 wrote:
ReplyDelete" I bonded better/ faster."
How do you know? I bonded instantly with my children, from the moment I saw them. The thirty minutes I was in post-op made no appreciable difference in the long run, and actually it was very special for my husband to get so much more daddy-baby time in that first half hour than I imagine most fathers get. Skin-to-skin contact with daddy's bare chest was a comfort to both my babies, and I was still nursing them within the first hour of life.
So, who is the baseline comparison for "bonded better/faster"? That is opinion masquerading as fact, and it is openly declaring that your home birth is better than other births and you are a better mother than other mothers for going that route.
In reality, though, the statement is nonsense. Infants and parents bond throughout infancy, and a dad's love is just as important as a mom's, and in the end, you have no rational basis for your better/faster claim.
By the way, trained midwives are health professionals, but not all midwives are trained. Worst case scenario is dad delivering baby alone, or with only family nearby, none of whom have the objective detachment of a trained health professional with a license and reputation on the line.
Again, I think that Lewis made plain, attended home births taking place within easy distance of a hospital are NOT the issue. It's the doctrine that home births are spiritually superior that is the problem.
The blog "The Skeptical OB" is written by a Harvard training OB and she goes over all the "gaps" in science of studies of homebirth in countries like Netherlands, New Zealand as well as here in the USA. Well worth reading.
ReplyDeleteShadowspring--you rock!! Cheap, cheap, cheap! No education, only "skeeels," no way to save for emergencies, just pop out another kid and blame the results on God's weeeeel. I hear you sister!~
ReplyDeleteShadow Spring wrote:
ReplyDelete-It's the doctrine that home births are spiritually superior that is the problem.-
Yes! That's what it all boils down to. While I am positive that certain branches of patriarchy and quiverful teach this, I wasn't exposed to it.
I was quiverfull, during my home births but that was not the reason I chose home birth.
I chose home birth because I had health issues that doctors (at that time they didn't believe in this condition, now they do. figures) did not believe I had. So I started to research herbs, and alternative diets to help my symptoms. It was mostly through reading alternative healing books, that I became exposed to home birth. Oh and watching "A Baby Story" on TLC. ;-)
I am not aware of quiverful ministries that say home birth is more spiritual??
However, when I was quiverful, the only ministries I was exposed to, that supported quiverful was The Maxwell's, Mary Pride, The "Quiverful" book, and Bill Gothard.
I never really dug very deep into Bill Gothard's teachings, and maybe he is the one that says homebirth is more spiritual? I only went to the Basic Seminar.
I forgot if Mary Pride said anything about it or the Quiverful book?? And I know the Maxwell's don't say it's spiritual superior.
I have never followed Nancy Campbell. I never followed Vision Forum either. By the time I was exposed to Vision Forum I had already started to my walk out of Legalism.
So curiously, who and what quiverful, patriarchal ministry and/or author/leader teaches that home birth is spiritually superior?
Not disagreeing with you at all...just curious since I wasn't exposed to that idea?
-Non Legalistic Home Birther
Holy Mother of Zarquon,
ReplyDeleteI don't know that I've ever seen a thread here take on so many comments in such a short timeframe.
I was so ready for a birthing center. My hometown opened one just before I got married, and I half wanted to come home and deliver there. But then, my MIL would have been there to take over.... Well, never had to cross that bridge, but I had plans! :)
Lewis,
ReplyDeleteIn your post you stated,
"Her father thought all of these bizarre ideas made them the "peculiar" people spoken of the KJV translation of 1st Peter 2:9. That poor translation is yet another reason to dig up the bones of King Jimmy and kick the crap out of them. The Greek phrase there doesn't mean "peculiar" as in "weird". Neither word is even close. It means "purchased by God". Most of the other translations have a more accurate rendering of that passage."
I realize the KJV may not be your favorite translation, but the following may be of interest to you in light of the above.
I can't go back to a dictionary at the time the KJV was published in 1611, but I can refer you to Noah Webster's original dictionary of 1828.
The word "Peculiar is defined as the following;
Peculiar (Adjective) -
1. Appropriate; belonging to a person and to him only....
2. Singular; particular....
3. Particular; Special....
4. Belonging to a nation, system or other thing, and not to others.
Peculiar (noun) - Exclusive Property; that which belongs to a person in exclusion of others....
As you can see, language has changed a little.
In no way, though, does this justify a misunderstanding or misapplication of the truth of Scripture, especially in the context of giving birth. The birth of a child is given a special place in the Bible, especially when the Son of God became flesh. It was officially recognized in Heaven. We should be careful not to denigrate it in any way that endangers precious life, the life of the baby being born as well as the life of the woman giving birth.
Children truly are a gift, an inheritance from God!
"As you can see, language has changed a little."
ReplyDeleteThat's one reason - along with the KJV's errors and the rabid and irrational loyalty of KJVonly-ers - that the KJV is far from my favorite translation.
Benjamin Bush, you said:
ReplyDelete"This responsibility stems from the truth that I will one day stand before God and give account for how I lived my life. This accounting will be given with His standards, not mine nor the standard of anyone else, individual or group. So, it is in my best interest, as well as the best interest of my wife and child, to earnestly seek His mind on the subject according to the standard He has made known and preserved for me.
Also, this does not preclude me from consulting my wife, needing to hear her thoughts of wisdom and expertise on the matter. To fail to do so would be an unloving act, since her state of mind, as well as her thoughts and desires are vitally important. After all, she's the one giving birth, not me. And it wouldn't be the first time I have listened to her, knowing she was right. God has used her on numerous occasions to save me from myself, so my ear is inclined to her."
If I'm reading you correctly, what you're saying is that though you are committed to listen to your wife, and may even decide to do what she wants, you consider the decision about how and where she gives birth to be ultimately up to you. Is that right?
If so, I believe that is a misreading of passages like Eph. 5:21-33. That passage says husbands are to love their wives, not lead them or exercise authority over them. Please reconsider and give your wife the adult autonomy she needs. As you said, she's the one giving birth. This is where, I'm sure, you should be submitting to her (see verse 21).
I've read the skeptical OB...her bias is very clear, and her interpretation of the data is not always scientific. There is a palpable closed-minded agenda going on there. Educated people can be wrong, especially when they have an agenda to prove.
ReplyDeleteThat said, one thing I've appreciated highlighted in that blog is the need for trained medical professionals to assess prenatal care and the birth process. Often, the negative studies she highlights as proof against homebirth are proof against well, unassisted childbirth. Which might make some people mad, as I know it's a 'thing', but I'm so glad I didn't go the unassisted route; I'd have died. Birth is a natural process to be sure, but it's a heckuva lot more complicated than going to the bathroom. From the earliest times of human history, there have been trained birth attendants.
Kristen,
ReplyDeleteAutonomy is a pleasant sounding concept to discuss and contemplate. The only problem with it is that "self" is the only focus of autonomy in any context.
Practically, autonomy is non workable and leads to anarchy in any setting and culture.
Furthermore, there's not one area of life where you are autonomous. God has designed life on this earth to be that way and he governs this law of sowing and reaping. Autonomy is an illusion.
The autonomy God has offered us lies in the choices we make. He has offered us the choice between Life & Death, Blessing and Cursing. If we choose Life and blessing, we must proceed according to the actions the God of life and blessing has determined in order to reap life and blessing. Failure to proceed properly leads to reaping death and cursing in our lives.
We don't get to dictate to God how He will conduct His universe. All the shaking of our fists at God because life has not turned out the way we thought it should will make absolutely no difference. And no amount of reinterpreting the clear statements of the Book according to any cultural perspective will change the mind of God.
Even in Jesus coming to this earth, he lacked autonomy. He spoke what His Father told Him to speak and performed those actions His Father told Him to perform. Doing the will of His Father was the reason He came. Die He must. Love demanded it. The law must be fulfilled. His Law. No autonomy. Self denied. Death to self.
He gave Himself for me. And I'm glad He did!
@Benjamin...Autonomy is ABSOLUTELY a part of spiritual maturity - self-control being a fruit of the Spirit, et cetera. Not every single thing having to do with "self" is bad.
ReplyDelete"He has offered us the choice between Life & Death, Blessing and Cursing."
No He hasn't. That choice was given to the nation of Israel in accepting the old covenant. It's a stretch to apply it to us under a new covenant.
"We don't get to dictate to God how He will conduct His universe. All the shaking of our fists at God because life has not turned out the way we thought it should will make absolutely no difference."
As to the first sentence, I don't think Kristen was suggesting any such thing. As to the second sentence, it reads like a religious smokescreen from an authoritarian viewpoint.
"And no amount of reinterpreting the clear statements of the Book according to any cultural perspective will change the mind of God."
Why do you believe everything in the biblical canon is the "mind of God"?
I read through The Skeptical OB's blog. It certainly makes me question what I thought was the truth about low-risk home birth safety. I'm very glad to be done having kids. I wouldn't want to have to decide about using a hospital, birth center, or home birth again.
ReplyDeleteBenjamin sounds like HE has no problems making decisions for himself AND others. That's more than autonomous, that's autocratic.
ReplyDeleteTwo thumbs down.
"And no amount of reinterpreting the clear statements of the Book according to any cultural perspective will change the mind of God."
ReplyDeleteBenjamin -if you believe that, here are a few clear statements from the word:
> all believers should submit to one another (Eph 5:21)(That includes believing husbands to their wives.)
> God shows no favoritism (Eph 6:9)(5:21 and 6:9 surround the favorite passage of hierarchists)
> the fruit of the spirit is self-control (Gal 5:23)(Self-control includes not being controlled by another...)
> Each should account for him/herself on judgment day - not men for women or fathers for children. (2 Co 5:10)
> Believers should not lord it over other believers (Mat 20:25-26)
(And BTW, no-amount of insisting on what you find clear will change the mind of God where the real meaning got lost in translation, as you obviously saw from how peculiar is unclear.)
Benjamin, if you really believe God "clearly" gave you the right to decide for your wife where and how she should give birth, then you have a much different idea of God than I do. When I tell you God said to love your wife not take authority over her, you say "we don't get to dictate to God how He runs His universe." I am doing no such thing. I am taking exception with the way you have conflated your supposed authority with the authority of God. "To question my right to rule you is to rebel against God" is the same thing that the kings of Europe said to their subjects 200 years ago. It's the same thing that white masters also said to their slaves 150 years ago.And guess what? They all had the "clear statements of the Book" to back them up. But Jesus said, "not so among you." Paul never intended to contradict Him on that.
ReplyDeleteI do not rebel against God. I question the divine right of males. If you don't like the word "autonomy," fine. But there is this little command that says, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." So I say to you, give your wife what you yourself take for granted-- the ability to take responsibility for herself before God. The ability to choose what's best for her own medical needs. The ability to be a grown-up.
It seems that I've struck some very sensitive chords.
ReplyDeleteI would remind everyone of the personal words of Lewis on every page of this blog, "Don't blindly accept. Think."
If "do unto others", is so highly thought of, then make sure that you don't read into my words things that I haven't stated. At best, they are presumptions.
Me submit? Where's my autonomy? You're telling me that I have to fore go my adult life and submit it to the whims of someone else? What kind of a God would expect me to submit to anyone else and abandon my liberty in Christ? I thought we were all the same in Christ? And why aren't you serving me, like Christ did when He gave Himself for me? Where's your Christian attitude?
In this condemnation of all things perceived Patriarchy, we are supposed to replace it with what, Matriarchy? Or is it some other system or construct? If so, name it.
As I said, the idea that we are autonomous is ridiculous. In every day life we are all in submission to authority. If you don't believe it, try conducting yourself on the road any way you please and see how far you get. If you don't kill yourself or someone else, it will negatively affect your bank account. Try doing your job any way you want to and see how long your boss will put up with it. This is true for every area of our life. And its true in our relationship with God. We are in submission to Him and His Truth.
God did offer to us the choice of Life & Death, Blessing & Curses. God said through the Prophet that He would write His laws on our hearts, referring to the New covenant that was to come through the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Paul tells us in Romans 1 and 2 that the law is already written on our hearts, so that, ultimately, we are without excuse. Jesus said Himself, "I came that you might have life........I am the Life". John said that he wrote the things to believers so that we might know that we have eternal life, the life in the Son. and He that has not the Son abides in death."
As to giving my wife the ability to take responsibility for herself, I cannot give to her what she already possesses. My wife is the most "adult", grown up, mature person I know.
Authoritarian smokescreen? Maybe you're using your own smoke to hide behind. I perceive a little of the nefarious group think in the idea. Maybe you're not as far from the herd mentality as you would like others to think? Maybe you can only get along with others who share your mindset?
What about true discussion and dialogue? Or does that go only so far. Or does the idea of "Having the mind of Christ" cause discomfort because Paul said that all Scripture is inspired and profitable for "doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness?" Maybe Jesus really didn't mean for us to "live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God"? Maybe Jesus didn't really understand what he was saying when he said that freedom comes about by "abiding in His word and His word abiding in us and, as a result, Knowing the Truth.
To believe that God would hold us accountable for our lives and not make known to us what the particulars are, that it's somehow up to us to figure things out in our autonomy, is also ridiculous. What kind of a God is that? Why should we serve Him if it's up to us? Completely illogical and lacking any reason. If God's not able to provide the direction we need, then God's nothing but a joke.
In the fleeing of all things perceived "Hyper-Fundamentalism, I see a gross pendulum swing to the other extreme.
It's called Hypo-fundamentalism. The same attitude condemned in others is prevalent here. And you have no right to tell me I'm wrong, because I'm autonomous!
Boy, this discussion has taken some turns! Shadowspring, I don't always agree with you, but you have nailed the main idea here- the issue isn't where you give birth (assuming there are thinking, informed adults involved in the decision), but whether or not it is considered more "Biblical", or "spiritual" to have homebirth. I was all about attachment parenting when my kids were babies, and it is nonsense to suggest that having them in a hospital would somehow prevent bonding.
ReplyDeleteAs for those skeptics out there, I have come across LOTS of attitudes about this in the "homehome crowd". Like they feel sorry for us hospital birthers, or perhaps, are just a little more...hmmm...motherly??
Hey, as a P.S. that is related to home birth- what about the bizarre emphasis by Gothard and others on circumcision and how it must be done at 8 days complete with a ceremony, etc.? I never could fathom where their Bible instructed Christians to do this, I know ours didn't!
ReplyDeleteLew--bet you never guessed what a can of worms you opened with this post! Home Birth is a VERY, VERY emotional topic. Poor guy!
ReplyDelete@Benjamin...
ReplyDelete"As I said, the idea that we are autonomous is ridiculous."
Context matters.
"Authoritarian smokescreen? Maybe you're using your own smoke to hide behind. I perceive a little of the nefarious group think in the idea. Maybe you're not as far from the herd mentality as you would like others to think? Maybe you can only get along with others who share your mindset?"
When you use the buzzwords and phrasing of someone with fundamentalist authoritarian beliefs...if it walks, talks, and quacks like a duck...
"What about true discussion and dialogue?"
I'm all for it.
"Or does that go only so far."
It usually goes until buzzwords kill it.
"Or does the idea of "Having the mind of Christ" cause discomfort because Paul said that all Scripture is inspired and profitable for "doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness?""
When Paul wrote 2nd Timothy 3:16, I'm pretty sure he wasn't talking about 2nd Timothy 3:16...and BTW, the whole 2nd Timothy 3:16 thing is a common fundamentalist buzz.
"Maybe Jesus really didn't mean for us to "live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God"?"
I'm pretty sure Jesus meant it. I'm also pretty sure Jesus wasn't talking about the biblical canon as we know it.
"Maybe Jesus didn't really understand what he was saying when he said that freedom comes about by "abiding in His word and His word abiding in us and, as a result, Knowing the Truth."
I don't think Jesus was talking about the biblical canon when he referred to "His word".
"To believe that God would hold us accountable for our lives and not make known to us what the particulars are, that it's somehow up to us to figure things out in our autonomy, is also ridiculous. What kind of a God is that? Why should we serve Him if it's up to us? Completely illogical and lacking any reason. If God's not able to provide the direction we need, then God's nothing but a joke."
God DOES provide direction - through His Spirit within us...which is what was promised to lead us into all truth (not a biblical canon). Most authoritarians and fundamentalists don't like the idea of personal accountability directly to the Holy Spirit within believers. They just can't control that kind of thing, dammit!
"In the fleeing of all things perceived "Hyper-Fundamentalism, I see a gross pendulum swing to the other extreme. It's called Hypo-fundamentalism. The same attitude condemned in others is prevalent here."
This is another very common buzz. Pendulum, one extreme to the other, yadda, yadda, yadda. Heard it a million times - and every time from a person with at least one foot planted firmly in fundamentalist authoritarian beliefs and legalism.
"And you have no right to tell me I'm wrong, because I'm autonomous!"
You are autonomous, which is why you've been free to come here and say whatever you've wished. I'm also autonomous, and act autonomously as the publisher of this blog, and HERE I can tell you whatever I want to.
What I'd like to suggest to you is that you read this...
http://thecommandmentsofmen.blogspot.com/2011/06/religious-addiction.html
And this...
http://thecommandmentsofmen.blogspot.com/2011/06/bible-and-religious-addiction.html
Benjamin wrote:
ReplyDelete"In this condemnation of all things perceived Patriarchy, we are supposed to replace it with what, Matriarchy? Or is it some other system or construct? If so, name it."
It's called "equality." And don't tell me it doesn't exist. Two businesspeople can go into a partnership or joint venture, without one of them having to be in charge. Each leads in his or her own area of expertise. One partner manages the accounting, the other the sales. Equality.
Two best friends don't have to have one of them be in charge. Each of them nurtures the other, being strong in the other's area of weakness. Equality.
All of the authorities you listed, whether of the law or of employment, are limited in scope and based on training, skill and inclination. My boss does not have the authority to come to my house after hours and tell me to take dictation. A policeman cannot enter my house without a warrant. If the President of the United States came to visit me in my home and I asked him to leave, he'd have to-- or I could have him arrested for trespassing.
I'm not against authority. I'm against divine right. Kings used to think that their genetics, their birth, gave them divine right to have authority over a country. White people used to think their genetics gave them divine right to rule over other races. Males still think their genetics gives them the right to rule over women. What you're talking about isn't authority. It's a caste system. Females are in a lower caste than males.
As for the herd mentality, I assure you that I have prayerfully researched my position for several years now. I did not reach it lightly.
I know I am coming across strong. That's because this is a strong topic. There's no need to take it personally. I use strong words because we're talking about the permanent subordination of a whole group of people to another group based on the accident of their birth. We have abandoned this line of thinking for all groups but this one. That's why this is serious.
And we're talking about this somehow being part of the New Creation kingdom of God, even though Paul said in 2 Cor. 5:16 that in the New Creation we "no longer view anyone according to the flesh," and in Gal. 3:28 that "in Christ there is not male and female." Are we in Christ, or not? That is the question. Texts about the nature of the kingdom, like these two, should govern our reading of texts about practical Christian living or church conduct, like 1 Cor 14:35, 1 Tim. 2:15, and Eph. 5:22, and not the other way around. Using Scriptures as proof-texts does not give you the right to say you are speaking the "clear intent" of God's word and we all must follow.
As for you not usurping your wife's adulthood and responsibility before God, I'm glad to hear it. This must mean that you believe where and how your wife gives birth, is ultimately up to her, not you. If you believe otherwise-- then you're contradicting yourself.
Try doing your job any way you want to and see how long your boss will put up with it.
ReplyDeleteThe difference is, if your boss is a total tyrant, you can quit and find a more reasonable boss. If you believe in wife-only, one-way submission, and a husband is a tyrant, the wife often has no recourse. She can't just quit like if she had a bad boss.
'Authoritarian smokescreen? Maybe you're using your own smoke to hide behind. I perceive a little of the nefarious group think in the idea. Maybe you're not as far from the herd mentality as you would like others to think? Maybe you can only get along with others who share your mindset?'
ReplyDeleteI completely agree. As someone who has disagreed with the theology present on this blog before I had the same response. This isn't a blog for thinking. It's for ranting about people who disagree and see things differently. Save your comments for another blog Benjamin, You won't get anywhere.
@Anonymous 2:10...
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure you gave me the "goodbye cruel blog" speech in a comment a few weeks ago, making it clear you wouldn't be visiting anymore (last couple of comments here)...
http://thecommandmentsofmen.blogspot.com/2011/11/death-to-courtship.html#comment-form
...yet you've come back regularly, and here you are commenting again.
Lolz
ReplyDeleteYou might need to be careful about your assumptions. The only comment I wrote on this thread was the one you responded to. Just saying.
ReplyDeleteLots of people choose to post anonymously.
@Anonymous 10:58...
ReplyDelete"You might need to be careful about your assumptions. The only comment I wrote on this thread was the one you responded to. Just saying."
No one said anything about "this thread". The issue is that you're even reading, and even more, commenting, on "this blog" given your previous declaration.
"Lots of people choose to post anonymously."
You're right. They do, but...I only tag the IP addresses of a select few. You're among the select few.
I think you may be incorrect if I am being accused of writing things I havn't.
ReplyDeleteSeems you have tagged me simply because I think differently to you.
SMH.
ReplyDeleteEither you or StatCounter is being dishonest. I pick you (StatCounter picks you, too). For that dishonesty, no more of your comments will be published. Please bow out gracefully.
I believe if someone were to study the word subordination, they would find that it has more than one definition. It can be referring to the inferiority of one group or thing in relation to another. It can also mean to simply be subject to another w/o reference to inferiority / superiority.
ReplyDeleteSo, to say that we are talking about the subordination of different people groups in relation to another, that very well could be a mistake, if not outright disingenuous.
It could mean God didn't know what He was doing when he had Paul talking to the Ephesians. If the woman being subject to her husband is a reference to her inferiority, then the earlier command for everyone to be in submission one to another, would mean that everyone is what??!!! - inferior and superior to everyone else??????
The term simple means to be subject to or submit to. And we all must be subject to many many people on a daily basis. Without this submission, all would be anarchy. Everyone would do their own thing because they would consider themselves and their rights to be superior to every one around them.
The inferior / superior aspect of subordination cannot work in the context.
In no way does this negate the spiritual reality of a woman being equal to a man before God. A woman can approach God on exactly the same basis as a man, because she is in Christ, not because she is a woman. She can have her prayers answered on exactly the same basis as a man, because she is in Christ and according to the will of God , not because she's a woman.
If the superiority aspect of subordination is included, then, yes we are talking about considering a number of groups inherently inferior to others. That's not what Scripture teaches.
Also, if this was true, then the relationship between the husband and wife being modeled after Christ to his Bride the Church would also be unworkable. The fact is that Christ has seated us positionally with Him in the heavenlies, has made us joint heirs with Him and exalted us to the point where we will rule with Him at a later time. The superiority / inferiority aspect of subordination doesn't work here either.
As far as no longer knowing Christ after the flesh, but spiritually instead, that is true. Whereas Christ was known before in the flesh, He is now related to in the Spirit.
The supposed problem lies in the fact that we remain on this earth in the flesh. Of course Jesus answered this when he reminded the Pharisees that, in the resurrection, we would no longer marry or be given in marriage, but will be as the angels are now. We have yet to shed our fleshly body and take on our spiritual body. Until we do, we are subject to the parameters of this earthly life and the design of Christ. We are still living in the flesh. We have yet to experience the fullness of our spiritual heritage as long as we abide in our fleshly bodies. So, the fullness of the position we have in Christ has not been fully realized yet.
"It could mean God didn't know what He was doing when he had Paul talking to the Ephesians."
ReplyDeleteThis is another buzz. I mean, who are we to argue with God!
I could mean that it was PAUL writing to the Ephesians, and not necessarily writing everything as God's mouthpiece.
Lewis,
ReplyDeleteI would think that this passage would get your attention either way since "Love" is such a prominent part of it. Loving your wife as Christ loved the Body of Christ and gave Himself for her is about as vital as it gets.
If Love is your standard, then Paul's words should resonate with you. Submission is based on Loving God & Loving neighbor.
@Benjamin...I didn't take issue with the passage. I take issue with the assumption that everything Paul wrote (and everything in the biblical canon) is dictation from God Himself, and I especially take issue with you buzzing us with it. You may not even realize you're doing it, but you are, and it's not endearing to the demographic here.
ReplyDeleteI'm not a fan of an entire theology being built around a passage (which may or may not be "God-breathed") which renders the single MOST important verse in the passage, "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ", a relative bystander. You seem to lean in that direction with your theology.
Benjamin, if submission is defined as the voluntary giving in of one person to another-- I have no problem with that; and, as you pointed out, Eph. 5:21 says ALL Christians are to voluntarily give in to one another. That means husbands to wives, too.
ReplyDeleteThe problem I have is with the double-speak that says, "The woman is not inferior to me, and all submission means is the voluntary yielding of one equal to another-- BUT I get to take the lead at all times in the marriage, because I'm the man, and the woman is under my authority because I'm the man."
Either submission is the voluntary yielding of one Christian to another, and is mutual and reciprocal between husbands and wives, OR the husband is in authority over the wife and the full-time leader of the marriage, with the wife as full-time follower.
The two positions are mutually exclusive. Either the wife and husband are equal (in which case submission would be shared) or the wife is subordinate to the husband at all times-- in which case they are not equal. It is not possible to have it both ways. And just using the word equal doesn't make it so.
Lewis,
ReplyDeleteIf you don't accept everything in the "biblical canon" as dictation from God Himself, that's fine. I was simply pointing out your own standard, the words of Christ Himself regarding Loving God and Loving your neighbor, which if I read your writings right, you have accepted as authoritative. If I'm wrong, please let me know.
Otherwise, the "buzzing" is a figment of your imagination. I thought the demographic here was having a dialogue about the issues you write about. If the conversation is to include only only one train of thought, then call the conversation what it is, group think. It's about endearing the demographic with the chosen consensus.
Personally, I'm not really a fan of hearing about the words of Jesus regarding Love and then accepting only part of those words.
An example would be the issue of authority and leadership. The passages about Leadership that Jesus taught His disciples about are throughout the Gospels. Everyone wants to talk about His comments about Leadership not being like that of the gentiles (lording it over other). This is correct.
It must be noted, though, what Jesus doesn't say. He doesn't eliminate Leadership and authority. He, instead, acknowledges it by saying, "He that "would be" or "is" greatest among you." He then simply tells us that the nature and practical dynamic are completely different, built on loving service to those under his authority / leadership rather than forced subordination. Leadership and authority were eliminated in no way by Jesus.
In fact, the nature of Leadership and authority exercised among His people was submissive loving service to one another. These two are inseparable in His kingdom.
I fail to see how I've relegated submission to an isolated status, a bystander, when the words of Jesus and Paul reveal that it's the core of Leadership and Authority. Jesus said Himself that He, the head of the Church, came as a servant, which is the example for us to follow.
Ironically, the two positions are mutually inclusive when Love is the standard. The authoritative words of Jesus very easily demonstrate this when taken as a whole. The words of Jesus cannot be isolated and picked over. They must remain in their immediate context as well as the context of the whole body of Jesus' teaching.
I realize that what I'm saying may not be endearing to the demographic, but I have not proceeded by tearing others down or calling names or demeaning others. I hope that I've proceeded in a respectful manner. I believe a true conversation demands this attitude be demonstrated. It shouldn't be considered negative to analyze someone words on a topic. Those words should be taken seriously (unless they are obviously said facetiously or in jest).
Usually, I will not blast someone or their beliefs unless and until they have demonstrated the need. And then again, sometimes blasting them or their beliefs is a waste of time and energy.
@Benjamin...
ReplyDelete"Otherwise, the "buzzing" is a figment of your imagination. I thought the demographic here was having a dialogue about the issues you write about. If the conversation is to include only only one train of thought, then call the conversation what it is, group think. It's about endearing the demographic with the chosen consensus."
I doubt you really know what "buzzing" is, although your preaching is rife with it. Buzz after buzz, fundamentalist cliche after fundamentalist cliche, and constantly telling us what we "must" do in our thinking and processing. You're also getting on thin ice with the groupthink nonsense. Stop it. NOW.
The demographic here is primarily people recovering from abusive theologies and experiences, fundamentalism, and religious addictions. True, you haven't called anyone names, but you don't seem to realize that your brand of preaching and quoting verse after verse from the bible DOES tear down others (or perhaps you do - I don't know). It's extremely triggering, and makes a lot of us recoil. We've heard it all before, anyway, so it isn't like you're breaking new ground. Most of the people who read here want nothing more than to get away from your religiousness.
I've given you a LOT of latitude in your comments - and I promise you, that hasn't been easy. You remind me of my former future grandfather-in-law. That makes me more than a little uncomfortable.
Stop with the preaching. The only person who was interested in it was also very much like my former future in-laws and their crowd - chock full of religious fervor and "godliness", but couldn't be honest in a simple matter, and their word was meaningless.
I'm don't find it charming when fundamentalists and religious addicts come here to play "gotcha!"...Enough already.
Lewis,
ReplyDeleteLet me share with you my demographic.
I was raised in an independent fundamental church. I could add more descriptive terms to the title, but won't.
I've seen more abuse than what you could only write about on this blog the remaining years of your life. A very small part of that abuse I participated in when I was much younger, before I was married. As you can attest, it's not a pleasant experience.
The real problem started when I really started to examine beliefs according to Scripture. Asking questions made too many people uncomfortable and the answers were, at best, rote. You are absolutely correct when you state that many are afraid to think for themselves. It causes too much trouble. Fortunately, my Dad taught me to think instead of accepting everything that was offered to me. And when that thinking really kicked in, the trouble really began.
And when did that trouble really began? When I started reading Scripture for the Truth instead of listening to the thoughts of men. I found that what God said was, many times, much different, than what men had concluded. And since I was going to give account to God instead of men, my choice was clear, regardless of what others thought.
And not going along with the flow still makes many angry with me. It's part of the territory.
I've read your 15 posts that make up "The Joke Was On Me." series. It's a compelling story. It's heartbreaking, to say the least. I know exactly what you experienced. The only difference is that my struggles took place after I was married and our relationship has weathered the storm and is much stronger because of it. The dynamics are a little different, but much of my experience is the same as yours and sadly, familiar.
I've had to recover from the abuses, too.
From the beginning, I've tried to do a few things to not allow anger and bitterness to take over.
1. Never burn bridges. If a relationship is going to be ended or destroyed, let it come from the other person or group. You never know when God may use me in that person or group's life at a later time.
2. If someone is going to be "offended" by me, let it be the "word" which does the offending. This doesn't necessarily mean the spoken word. It usually means the word lived out. The main reason people have been so upset with me over the years is that I simply chose not to go along with certain actions of others. I didn't join in. I didn't condemn for their activity, either. I simply had other priorities that wouldn't allow me to join in. Sometimes that was simply a matter of time I didn't have to participate. But many still took offense w/o me saying anything.
I also made sure that my words, attitude and actions were such that they couldn't point a finger of accusation at me. I can't say that I've always been perfect at this but........ The sad part of it is that many people became upset anyway.
3. Never give the treatment I received to others. This means attitude as well as actions.
I could give a few more, but I won't at this time.
I will say, that regardless of the topic on a blog, the interaction is limited at best. Nuances aren't always evident in words on the screen. The heart of a person can be easily misread when viewing only written words. That's why face to face interaction is so important to relationships. Seeing a person when interacting with them is usually much fuller.
With that said, please make sure that you don't automatically presume that just because someone has certain thoughts on authority and leadership that they automatically are the type of person as your former future father-in-law. He definitely is an extreme example. Are there others out there like him? Definitely! But don't jump to conclusions about people on this issue. You may end up appearing and acting just like the ones you write about on this blog.
"With that said, please make sure that you don't automatically presume that just because someone has certain thoughts on authority and leadership that they automatically are the type of person as your former future father-in-law."
ReplyDeleteI was speaking more specifically to my former future GRANDfather-in-law...and that's among the least of the things that remind me of him.
The bottom line in what I'm communicating to you - stop with buzzwords, the preaching, the "God's word" mentality, and the general religiousness. It's really difficult to see a difference in you and the fundamentalists/fundamentalism which have damaged a lot of us. Too many buzzwords, cliches, et cetera. If you can't understand that, I'd suggest considering whether this blog might not be right for your discourse. It's possible that you may not be quite as "out" of that world as you'd like to think.
Orwellian double-speak: War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
ReplyDeleteAnd now we can add, submission is the core of leadership.
Oh my, the head does spin.
Does this mean that women are the true leaders then, in church and in marriage, since they are the ones always told to submit?
ReplyDeleteJust keep telling yourself that ladies, while you fetch your man his slippers and his iced tea, and clean the bathrooms at church, and never are asked to actually lead anything that doesn't involve cooking, cleaning or child care.
"submission...it's the core of Leadership and Authority" - so women should definitely be preaching, teaching, pastoring and serving on deacon boards, because we have been perfecting the core of leadership and authority for a long, long time.
Head still spinning.
Another double-speak is this:
ReplyDelete"Permanent subordination is equality."
Benjamin Bush, you sound like your heart is in the right place, though you do speak fundamentalist Christianese a large amount of the time. If you're interested in finding out where I'm coming from, in other, still-Bible-respectful ways of looking at the traditional passages, you might examine some of the posts on my blog. The first part of my five-step analysis of 1 Tim 2:15 is here:
http://krwordgazer.blogspot.com/2011/11/my-interpretation-of-1-timothy-211-15.html
My three-part series on Ephesians 5:22 starts here:
http://krwordgazer.blogspot.com/2011/10/is-marriage-really-illustration-of.html
Here's my post on why the historical-cultural method is the best way to exegete the Bible:
http://krwordgazer.blogspot.com/2011/10/bible-and-plain-sense-reading.html
And my most recent post is on why the traditional, "this-is-only-about-salvation" interpretation of Gal. 3:28 is illogical:
http://krwordgazer.blogspot.com/2011/12/what-galatians-328-cannot-mean.html
There are ways to take the Bible seriously, and to take the passages on women seriously, without reading them in the traditional, female-restrictive way which the male-led church and the males-only translation teams have always done. It's time to stop using the Bible as a tool to uphold the power of those in power, and time to understand that the Good News was intended to be good news for women too, and why the truth that sets us free was meant to set women free as well as men.
@Kristen *Like*
ReplyDeleteBenjamin, it would really help if you answered the question you have been asked: Do you believe it is your decision or your wife's, where she gives birth? That would clarify what you mean by all your long paragraphs which seem, as far as we can tell, to view wifely submission as more important than the mutual submission of all believers - but we may simply be misunderstanding you.
ReplyDeleteOh, and wrt the comment someone made about needing to be in a hospital for 'immediate' intervetion - there's no such thing. For example, it takes 20-30 minutes to prep a theatre for a C-section. Many smaller private hospitals (here is Australia at least) need to call in the OB if there's an emergency. And so on. A home birth within a 25 minute drive of a hospital is the *same* as being *in* a hospital. Not actually wanting to endure the transfer I can understand - but most women do, anyway - ie, they're traveling to the hospital while in labor - especially for shorter labors. We drove 25 min to hospital with 2-minute contractions all the way for my last birth, there's no way I'm doing that again - not to mention the risk of giving birth at the side of the road ;)
I'm sorry- I disagree. I believe that at least in the U.S., in a medium to large city hospital that a true emergency could be handled start to finish in a shorter time frame than if the person had to be transported, evaluated, prepped, etc.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting how this discussion comes back to the same basic question that all the other discussions revert to...Why are you choosing homebirth- (or why are you choosing it for your wife?) Why do you homeschool? Why do you have family integrated church? If you think that it makes you one bit holier than the Christian who chooses otherwise, you are on a dangerous path!
Well, considering there are hospitals in the US with caesar rates of 90pc, you're probably right - all that practice is bound to make them faster at it. And you can bet those same section-friendly hospitals wouldn't be willing to trust the evaluation of a home birth midwife and would muck around doing one of their own.
ReplyDeleteBut you're right, the question comes back to, are you doing this to prove how holy you are? Like some PPs, I'd be interested to hear what the actual (supposed) doctrinal argument behind birthplace options is...
Amen. We can disagree and debate the medical facts and/or opinions behind our decisions without resorting to claims that one way or another will give us a better rank in heaven, or that our children or marriage is less blessed, or that other things will go badly for us...and all the other dire warnings that these people issue to those who do not see things their way.
ReplyDeleteOkay, I admit it, I haven't read all the comments. I started to and realized I'd never finish. But let me just say this. I think there are only two "requirements" for a woman to give birth in any particular place:
ReplyDelete1. The decision is absolutely free, without pressure from anyone (religious leaders included).
2. The decision is well-informed -- she knows the risks and benefits of her decisions.
Other than those two things, what right do you have to deny a woman the birth choices that she wants? (Of course, I am not sure you are saying you would *refuse* to let your wife birth at home, or that you would censure homebirthers that you knew, or if you're simply saying you would disagree. If it's the latter, I suppose you have a right to your opinion!)
In my case, I knew I wanted a homebirth. I was extremely educated about birth before I got married (I am interested in medicine). But when I told my husband what I wanted, he outright refused. I *had* to have my baby in a hospital, because he was terrified what might go wrong if I didn't. I don't, as a rule, let my husband boss me around, but I decided it would be better to pick an option he was comfortable with, so I could be assured of his support whatever happened.
What happened was I got a million interventions I didn't want, had a terrible experience (not that that matters, though, right? it's only me, not my baby), ended up ripping my lady parts to shreds, and had a sucky (no pun intended) time trying to breastfeed my baby because of all the interventions.
As the doctor walked out of the room, having put me back together after her horrible management had caused me so much damage, my husband looked at me and said, "There is not one thing that woman did that we couldn't have done better ourselves."
I agreed, obviously, and we're both decided to birth at home with a midwife next time. But I do wish my husband had given me the benefit of the doubt last time, and realized that I was informed, and that it was *my* body that was going to be hurt if anything went wrong. And it was *my* baby, as well as his, that I wanted a good start for.
I'm not going to go and say that men have no right to say anything on the topic. But when it comes down to it, I think husbands ought to leave the final decision to their wives. They are the one who has to go through it. They have no right to force a homebirth if she's so terrified she'd rather have a c-section, and they have no right to force her into the hospital if she doesn't want to go. Why, when we're giving birth, do we lose all right to bodily autonomy?
Whew, did not read the comments either :) (And who will read all the way down to mine!).
ReplyDeleteBut I just wanted to add that I agree with you, Lewis.
I had my baby at home 6 months ago and I couldn't have asked for a better birth. I just always wanted to have my babies at home. The hospital was 2 miles away, I had a licensed midwife who I LOVED, and everything was great. Of course, good midwives check for things that may indicate problems early on (and continue to do so) and if there had been issues we wouldn't have had a problem being in the hospital.
I certainly do not see it as a religious matter, and I think there are women who are better off having babies in the hospital. There are also women who are better off at home. Not wanting to have a home birth is a good reason to go to the hospital, I think! But it's none of my business, really. I want women to be educated, yes, but it's not my (or your, bystander) decision.
And also, as a student nurse who just recently took microbiology, I just can't imagine going to the hospital for anything unless absolutely necessary. It is a place full of sick people -- there's not really any way around that.
I also think there is room for an open mind. Don't be against home birth because it's something that some QF happen to be for.
Look up the McGlade case in Florida. That's a good one.
ReplyDelete