Thoughts on trying for a VBAC, Part 2

My head is buzzing with questions: another month has passed and so I had another appointment this past week with my going-to-be-former OB. (I decided to switch to a practice that has both midwives and OBs so that I could have more support if I decide to attempt a VBAC.) 

At this last appointment with her I was hoping to ask her more questions, but the more questions I asked, the more uncomfortable she seemed to get. When answering my questions, she continually tried to dissuade me from a VBAC by emphasizing the dangers of it and by continually mentioning having a repeat cesarean. She mentioned repeatedly not letting me go past 39 or 40 weeks, which would probably completely eliminate the chances of letting labor come on its own, something a woman attempting a VBAC should definitely do.

She also answered her phone and left the room in the middle of the appointment, and when she returned said (not because of the call) that she had to move on to the next appointment. Further, the more questions I asked, the more she said, "We'll see when you are further along, especially how big the baby is..." and referring to how Carson was 8'12'' (which in my book isn't that big). But I have a lot of questions and would like to set up a goal now before it's too late and I get pressured into having another Csection when I don't feel prepared or informed enough, like last time. I want more information.

I've liked this Dr. for several reasons though. Especially for how she acted at my 13 week appointment when she couldn't find the heartbeat (anterior placenta) and had to have an immediate ultrasound. She was genuinely worried and I could tell by the look on her face, yet she tried to remain calm. That impressed me. Further, she has always asked questions about our lives apart from my pregnancy or female health. She always tried to interact with Carson. In short, she has awesome bedside manner, but as she hinted to at this most recent appointment, there are powers above her that probably limit her ability to oversee a VBAC. In fact, without my mentioning my switch or to whom I was switching, she recommended the very group of midwives with whom I have my next appointment! 

In spite of this Dr's unwillingness to openly support my attempt at a VBAC or answer my questions in a fair manner, the pendulum has lately swung back towards having another section. Here's why:

**The risks to baby Samuel for attempting a VBAC are huge in severity but small in number or probability, whereas the risks to Samuel for a repeat Cesarean are small in severity and number, but worse for my body in the future, and possibly future pregnancies. 

**Future children/pregnancies have been my whole motivation for even considering a VBAC. But right now I have 2 kids, one in utero and one out. The one in utero (Samuel David) is already here, and I must consider his safety. At this point, I would rather have to have a hysterectomy or other problem that is not life-threatening to me or Samuel than risk Samuel's life in any form. I would rather have some health problem in the future than face the tragic death/loss of brain function because my uterus ruptured because I chose to try to have a vaginal birth. Any tragedy we would face because of a failed VBAC would be my fault directly. 

Samuel's life is much more important to me than having a uterus when I go through menopause or being able to impress other moms with my super-birthing powers. Plus, right now having more than two children is only a dream, not a reality. Samuel David Guthrie is a reality and a gift from the Lord. His life is more important than a VBAC or a dream that may or may not become a reality through our biological children.

But I have yet to talk with the midwives (august 19th). I want more information.

Lastly, the consent form that Clark Memorial has you sign has some interesting stuff to say. I don't know if it is from the OB or Midwife perspective. It seems to contain a balance of both, so I thought I'd retype it here. It is thought provoking I think.

Informed Consent for Patients with a Prior Cesarean Birth

1. I understand that I have had one or more prior Cesarean births.

2. I understand that I have the option of undergoing an elective repeat cesarean or attempting a vaginal birth after a cesarean.

3. I understand that approximately 70% of women who undergo a VBAC will successfully deliver vaginally.

4. I understand that the risk of a uterine rupture during a VBAC in someone such as myself, who has had a prior incision in the non-contracting part of my uterus, is around 1%.

(This is what I said above-->) 5. I understand that VBAC is associated with a higher risk of harm to my baby that to me.

6. I understand that VBAC carries a lower risk to me than does a cesarean delivery.

7. (their emphasis) I understand that if my uterus ruptures during my VBAC, there may not be sufficient time to operate and to prevent the death of or permanent brain injury to my baby.

8. I understand that the decision to have VBAC is entirely my own and the option of an elective repeat cesarean has been discussed with me. (This hasn't really been discussed with me as much as I'd like! Because as I said, the Dr. hasn't really answered my questions. ha)

9. I understand that if I deliver vaginally, I most likely will have fewer problems after delivery and shorter hospital stay than if I have a cesarean delivery.

(boo! Don't like this) 10. I understand that during my VBAC, the use of oxytocin (Pitocin) hormone to make my uterus contract may be necessary to assist me in my vaginal delivery and the "risks" of this drug have been thoroughly explained to me. 

11. I understand that if I choose a VBAC and end up having a cesarean during labor, I have a greater risk of problems than if I had had an elective repeat cesarean.

12. I have read or have had read to me the above information... etc etc



Sigh. Any thoughts or advice are welcome.

In conclusion, this situation has thrust me into several conflicts: the war between the OB camp and the midwife camp; the conflict between two routes of childbirth, neither of which I want to take; the current issues that divide many moms between two camps of birthing thought; the idea that "the business if being born" (which I have yet to watch btw) is what got me into this mess in the first place... the nagging thought that if I had not trusted only one doctor so implicitly (because of fear), I may not have to make this hard decision at all. I envy my friends who have had 1, 2 or more vaginal births.

Why can't there just be a third way to give birth? That would be adoption ;)

Why Christians need to be cautious with Rachel Held Evans' writings

This lady has gotten attention; for her skepticism, embrace of doubt, for questioning everything about traditional American evangelicalism. Bible interpretation, women's roles, especially the word "biblical", homosexuality, gay marriage and other sexual issues are all areas that she has a voice in.

She strikes a chord with those jaded by evangelicalism. Or the cynics. Or people who have doubts that they just can't conquer. She also strikes a chord with people who are or have been part of a typical evangelical subculture or church, but who do not have the family structure that is usually desired: marriage and/or children.

These issues and viewpoints are personal and, I'm guessing, painful. They definitely cause a lot of friction. Thus when I write this I have absolutely no intention of causing more hurt. I also realize that writing as one with the desired familial structure I may not be well received.

Can the reader set aside any bias against me? I hope so. I'm simply writing as a Christian to anyone who is curious enough to know my two cents.

I've been observing Rachel Held Evans from a distance for two or three years now; reading her stuff, reviews of her stuff, articles about her or by her, etc. She's smart. I love her writing style. I resonate with many of her concerns about American evangelicalism. I too struggle with church.

But there are some things about her trains of thought, her presuppositions, her hermeneutic, her views of authority, that I think can lead to some serious betrayals of orthodox Christianity. Not evangelicalism, but Christianity. Stuff that transcends the littler issues that divided denominations or elected presidents. I'm talking core stuff.

Before I go any further, I want to say that Evans is so good with words and thoughts that I'm sure she would easily refute what I have to say. In fact, it's as if the trap has been laid, and I'll probably step right into it, for refuting anything she writes only confirms what she writes about stereotypical evangelicals. Inherent in her style is an argument that is almost impossible to refute, for she speaks out of both sides of her mouth when using her postmodern hermeneutic on God's word and world.

Nonetheless I'll say what I feel led to say: 

Following her train of thought will lead a Christian down a path that forsakes the inerrancy, authority and sufficiency of Scripture. On this train also rides those who don't truly believe, deep down, that the Holy Spirit is working in evangelical churches, which are part of Christ's body, today. In her view, it seems as if most (or all) authority in America's church is really a fabricated, man-made, and hopelessly corrupt system. Therefore we can't trust these pastors or church leaders, we can only trust ourselves.

The subtle denial of Scripture's inspiration and its implications, embracing and nurturing doubts of Scripture's authority, and lowering the Bible to the status of just another classic novel or good moral book is an age-old practice. What I see that may be new with Evans is that she blurs the line between higher and lower textual criticism, but at the core embraces a higher criticism and doesn't view Scripture as authoritative. This leaves one with a powerless social gospel, devoid of the Holy Spirit and the power of regeneration and sanctification and glorification. Jesus didn't die and physically raise from the dead in order to save us from the penalty of our sins; He just physically rose and we don't know what for.

But I see that God's Spirit is working. Yes, even in silly ol' 'Murica. And a vast majority of the Scriptures are really easy to understand and are much harder to twist than people say it is. In fact, the Bible through and through has some pretty nasty things to say to those who choose to reject God's word. It has some doubly nasty foretellings for those who lead God's children away from the gospel as well. There actually are God-given categories of thought for fear and trembling, and for God's authoritative judgment. He is our Creator.

We should fear to flout what God says in his word. We should fear his judgement for tampering with a Christian's one reliable source of eternal truth. We should also fear that we are trampling on the blood of Christ poured out for us, going back on what we had received; adoption into God's family, wholly undeserved; the inheritance of God's kingdom; the sure promises of God; an essential place to serve in the body of Christ; the gospel of peace on our feet, powerful to save and free to all; the child-like trust in God alone for reconciliation with him! We cannot throw these eternal benefits away to have our ears itched, our doubts confirmed and to feel better about not fitting a temporal man-made mold of the nuclear family! What do we get if we gain the whole world and yet lose our souls?

Dear friends, if you are a fan of RHE I make no claim to know where your heart or hers is when it comes to the Christian faith. I'm only saying what I see in what she writes. I think one should be very cautious to lock themselves into a way of thinking proselytized by a person whose fame has flourished on a platform of creating a vacuum of belief, of denying old ways, and pulling out and tossing aside foundation stones.

I also don't think that questioning things is wrong. The right or wrong is in the answer you settle on. And the standard of right and wrong belongs to God, not people.

Lastly I think this all just boils down to who you put your faith in and how you perceive the role of postmodern thought in biblical interpretation or the illumination of Scripture. If red flags don't come up in your mind when someone makes weighty claims that question millenia-old teachings of Christianity, then I fear for you.

Butterfield's book, homosexuality, etc.

I haven't written in a while! I think it's been 11 days, which is a record. I'm sure the internet missed another person's opinions.... anyway...

I've been taking this time to let Rosaria Champagne Butterfield's testimonial book just sink into my soul. Like I said, I'm in the process of reading 3 different books giving autobiographical testimony of conversions, all of which come from some sort of sexual brokenness. This is in an effort to understand where people come from to Christ, and how better to relate to them, befriend them and love them.

And Carson starts fussing now... this is the other reason why writing blog posts is hard! Having a crazy, adventurous toddler! That being said, I don't really have time to write any kind of comprehensive review of her book. I'm glad that's not my job. So I want to write about how her book changed my life!

Rosaria went from being a feminist, lesbian English professor studying Queer Theory in New York to being now a wife, pastor's wife and adoptive parent. She describes her conversion as a trainwreck, traumatizing and just really hard! She says that as she read through the Bible to refute it, and met with her new friend, a Reformed Presbyterian minister, the Word of God got bigger in her than herself. She had a lot of ups and downs along the way, but I'll save those for your own reading.

Two things powerfully struck my in the beginning of reading this book. 1) Her critiques of American evangelicals, and 2) the role of pastor Ken Smith as a friend and advocate in her search through the Bible (before she left her lesbian lifestyle).

1) When I first read her critiques of evangelicals I was offended. I felt my face get hot as I read it. I didn't like reading all the things that people like me are doing wrong toward the gay community. I knew she was right though! When I read through this part of the book a second time, having read the story of her conversion, it was easier to read. 

Examples:

"Here is one of the deepest way Christians scared me: the lesbian community was home and home felt safe and secure; the people that I knew the best and cared about were in that community; and finally, the lesbian community was accepting and welcoming while the Christian community appeared (and too often is) exclusive, judgmental, scornful and afraid of diversity..." pg 5 (italics mine).

"[Christians] appeared to use the Bible... in order to bring the Bible into a conversation to stop the conversation, not deepen it" pg 4.

"I'm grateful that the Lord brought me to a church that was as strong on teaching as it is on compassion... My lesbian friends had to learn that not all Christians are bigots. My Christian friends had to learn that Christians have a lot to learn from gay and lesbian folks about mercy work... I didn't know how to bridge the two groups..." pgs 23-24.

Here is a long one, but this one powerfully struck me:

"Shortly after becoming a Christian, I counseled a woman who was in a closeted lesbian relationship and a member of a Bible-believing church. No one in her church knew. Therefore, no one in her church was praying for her. Therefore, she sought and received no counsel. There was no "bearing one with the other" for her. No confession. No repentance. No healing. No joy in Christ. Just isolation. And shame. And pretense. Someone had sold her the pack of lies that said that God can heal your lying tongue or your broken heart, even cure your cancer if he chooses, but he can't transform your sexuality... She said: 'Rosaria, if people in my church really believed that gay people could be transformed by Christ, they wouldn't talk about us and pray about us in the hateful way that they do.'

"Christian reader, is this what people say about you when they hear you talk and pray? Do your prayers rise no higher than your prejudice? 

"I think that churches would be places of greater intimacy and growth in Christ if people stopped lying about what we need, what we fear, where we fail, and how we sin... And I suspect that instead of seeking counsel and direction from those stronger in the Lord, we retreat into our isolation and shame and let the sin wash over us, defeating us again" pg. 25.

Wow. 

2) The friendship that this Reformed Presbyterian minister and his wife, Ken and Floy, formed with this nonChristian, Christian-hating lesbian activist was truly loving and authentic. And to be loving and authentic he did not have to approve of the homosexual lifestyle. But he did have to go against what most Christians do today, which is to separate themselves from close friendship with anyone in the LGBT community. 

There were some notable components of their friendship... the fact that he didn't just invite her to church and quote a ton of Scriptures at her, that they didn't treat her like a project, scapegoat, blank slate for them to write on, or example of warning to Christians. He didn't humiliate her. He didn't just talk about sexual issues all the time. It seems like to me they talked mostly about the Bible and Jesus and Christianity. Mainly because she was writing something against the Christian Right and needed to study the Smiths. 

She says, 

"Before I ever set foot in a church, I spent two years meeting with Ken and Floy and on and off "studying" scripture and my heart. If Ken and Floy had invited me to church at that first meal I would have careened like a skateboard on a cliff, and would have never come back. Ken, of course, knows the power of the word preached but it seemed to me he also knew at that time that I couldn't come to church - it would have been too threatening, too weird, too much. So, Ken was willing to bring the church to me. This gave me the room and the safety that I need to match Ken and Floy's vulnerability and transparency. And so I opened up to them. I let them know who I was and what I valued. I invited them into my home and into my world. They met my friends, came to my dinner parties, saw me function in my real life. They made themselves safe enough for me to do this" pgs 11-12.

After I read the whole book, one big theme concerning sin and repentance struck me: the true cost of the Christian life in denying oneself and taking up one's cross. In Rosaria's life this can be summed in this sentence: "One doesn't repent for a sin of identity in one session" pg 23. 

We all have to repent of our identities and give our whole selves to Him. We all are depraved and lost without him. And as Christians we should see ourselves on an equal plain with the rest of the condemned, non-believing world, were it not for Christ in us. 

I came away from this book wanting to make more non-believing friends and friends from the gay community. I hate that they have a hard time and many times don't have anyone to share the truth about Christ's love and sacrifice to them. 

I know that Rosaria's case is unique - she sought out this pastor after receiving a letter in response to an article she wrote. He sought her out too, but she had to initiate. She had to study the bible for herself, and she did so because of her academic goals, not because the pastor told her to. Ultimately, it was God who saved Rosaria. He only used the Smiths for a time. I pray that more Christians can do that, especially with what's going on in the U.S. today. I think next week there is some legislation on gay marriage that's getting voted on. Instead of hating the gay community and seeing them as the enemy, we should remember that our battle is not with flesh and blood, but evil spirits and Satan himself.

Weakness verses

On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.”

When I kept silent,
    my bones wasted away
    through my groaning all day long. For day and night
    your hand was heavy on me;
my strength was sapped
    as in the heat of summer^. Then I acknowledged my sin to you
    and did not cover up my iniquity.

The Lord did not set his affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples. But it was because the Lord loved you and kept the oath he swore to your ancestors that he brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the land of slavery, from the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt. Know therefore that the Lord your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments. 

 Rebuke the wise and they will love you.

 
Mark 2:17, 1 Cor 1:26-31, Ps 32:3-5, Deut 7:7-9, Prov 9:8

Controversial Questions

source: sbts.edu/women/seminary-wives-institute/

Well I've sure been a slacker when it comes to SWI. It's a great resource for the ladies not in seminary around here, and I'd been taking only electives and not core classes for... ahem... 5 years now! lol. I can't believe it's been 5 years. In 5 years I have taken 6 electives, 2 required, and a combined total of 2 years off. Of course they aren't super strict with it. I've never been told: "You have to take this course or we'll kick you out!"

It was honestly hard to get into SWI because I had just finished getting a B.A. in Bible at Moody when we moved here 5 years ago. It wasn't so much that I had nothing new to learn, but that I was a bit burnt out from intense theological studies and paper writing and reading and wanted to relax and take more directly applicable classes. 

My favorite so far has been Nuts and Bolts of Local Church Ministry, which taught all new material for me and required us to read Liberating Ministry from the Success Syndrome by Hughes. I can't say enough good things about that book or that class. But especially the book - all the things that people get disillusioned with when it comes to church, all the obstacles a man like my husband faces in his ministry career... it all has it's cure in the Scriptural principles that Liberating puts forth. "Success is serving... success is praying... success is loving... success is faithfulness... success is prayer... success is attitude... success is holiness..." Those are the chapter headings. It sounds cheesy but when you get into the book, it makes perfect sense. 

Anyhoo, I was going to talk about the current SWI course that I'm signed up for. It's called Controversial Questions. It deals with creation and evolution, government and law, sexuality and gender (uh-oh...), family and children, medicine and bioethics, and doctrine and Scripture. 

If anyone reading my blogs in the past hasn't noticed, I kind of have a thing for controversies. It bothers me that all kinds or people, even people with less education than me in these areas, will proclaim their opinions and rants on the internet and get a lot of agreement, not because they are saying anything true, but because they are mad or hurt and are saying what peoples' itching ears want to hear. It's especially hard when I see people my age, who I've known from church or bible college, denying what they used to hold to for the sake of having their itching ears relieved for a time.

Not only do these things bother me, but my own questions and disillusioning experiences and doubts are what drive me to seek answers. When someone seeks answers to their questions with a heart that believes their God is good, a heart that is willing to feel hurt and be healed, those answers are easy to find. Hard to apply. God gives wisdom to those who ask. But when someone seeks answers that satisfy their desire for revenge or to cast blame, including on God, or answers that justify the things they do that are not pleasing to God, they'll find the fake answers. 

I don't profess tons of knowledge gained in experience in these areas, but I have enough experience of churches to know that you can never go to a church expecting a utopia. The only utopia that will exist on earth is when Jesus returns. But when utopia-seekers join a church and become disillusioned, they blame it on their local church or denomination. They leave. They cast judgments and use their bitterness as fuel for snide remarks. This reaction is just wrong.

What is stopping me from joining this online discussion and providing another perspective? Again, many people I read don't have any more educational experience than I do, especially in Biblical studies. Maybe someday I'll jump in an be an orthodox voice in the debates. The holdback is the drama. Sigh, the drama. The ad hominem and the name-calling. The slippery slopes and the straw men. If I jump in, I may never come out alive!

My encounter with the nasty passage of Genesis 34

For years now I have really loved the book of Genesis. I love the narrative, the snapshots into ancient culture and customs, and how God revealed himself so plainly...

But today I hit a bump in the road. It's been over 8 years since I've really studied this, and since then I've usually swerved around this bump in the road, but there is a time to face your doubt head-on and deal with it! Gen. 34 is just nasty. The whole situation and every player in it is just nasty. The nastiest thing is what Jacob's two sons did. Cruel, heartless, mass-killing! 

And the voice in my head, a voice I am convinced was nurtured by all the anti-belief trends I marinated in while growing up in the Seattle area, the voice that dominated my being until I met Christ at 14... this voice questioned, "What kind of 'good' faith would have patriarchs like these? " or, "How can the Bible be God's Word with such horrific acts?" or, "How can God approve of this?"

These questions have heavy presumptions. The core presumption being that everything set forth in biblical narratives, including the choices of key people, is (or should be) approved by God and is considered holy even today. That patriarchs were perfect, holy people and should be our example. 

Psh! 

This is why it's important to get education in the Bible. This is why it's important for pastors to explain the whole Scriptures to their congregants. I'm so blessed to have gone to one of the best Bible colleges around, Moody Bible Institute. But again, I hadn't gone in-depth into a study of Genesis for 8 years now!

Luckily we still have our textbooks, plus more from David's seminary classes. I'd been reading a few things on Genesis (like commentaries and Bible encyclopedias) but the best thing I read on this has been James Montgomery Boice's commentary Genesis: An Expositional Commentary, Vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998.)

Boice's chapter (117) on Genesis 34 is entitled, "A Shameful Incident". The first thing he points out is that many influential commentators have not dealt with the passage, by either skipping it completely, telling readers to figure it out on their own, or sometimes even telling pastors there is no valuable lesson to preach from the passage (p. 829). Boice insists that there is, especially in the area of how not to live!

But the main encounter I want to focus on with Gen. 34 is bibliology (doctrine of the Bible) and even the inerrancy of Scripture, not so much the Christian life. The latter is a cake walk in this case...

Anyhoo, Boice says, 

"Whenever the Bible contains material that reflects so badly not merely upon the sins of humanity in general but also upon the particular wickedness in the hearts and lives of God's people, this is evidence of the divine and not merely the human origin of the Scriptures... Human writers would have suppressed these events, just as commentators sometimes seem compelled to suppress them today... As we study this chapter we find the words of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 to be true; "All Scripture is [indeed] God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man" [i.e. person] "of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" (pp. 829-830).

If you were transcribing the ancient scrolls, would you not want to leave out Genesis 34? I would. Yet the Jews have included it in the Torah from the beginning (829). Our natural shame wants us to suppress things like this.

That's the point of the passage! We should be horrified by what we read. It was wrong. 

Moreover this passage touches on the roots of the Good News: Man cannot save himself. All other religions/spiritualities involve man reaching out to the divine somehow, but Christianity is God reaching down to man. The Good News is that all have sinned, that the wages of sin is death, and that the gift of eternal life is for all who believe in Jesus Christ alone for their salvation, not their own imperfect and perpetually tainted good works. (Romans 3:23, 6:23-24, Ephesians 2:8-9, Ephesians 1) 

Look at this pretty graph I made!

I first learned this from my youth pastor, and then learned all the amazing details from the Bible

Even before Christ, God told the Israelites that he chose them not because they were better than all the other nations around them, but because of his own goodness and sovereign plan (>>>Deuteronomy 7:6-9). And it is clear that regardless of all the stupid things God's people have ever done (like the Crusades, etc) God will still work out His plan. People will still believe in Jesus Christ. 

God's love is relentless. There's nothing we can do to stop Christ from doing his work on earth. People saying that Judaism or Christianity is false or the Bible is false can't stop it either. And pointing out Gen 34 as a reason to reject God is only an excuse masking deeper, tougher issues. 

Of course God hates what Simeon and Levi did. Their shame is our warning and our reminder that we are all capable of such evils, and such evils are in all our natures, and that God is the only one who can save us from ourselves and from His wrath against evil.