Silence is not always agreement

Today, I am writing to you from the vantage point of a pastor's wife. If you have been a reader on my blog for any length of time, you know this is very rare for me. I am, first and foremost, a wife and mother - as are many of my readers. My posts reflect this. 

However, I have also been by my husband's side through over 14 years in the pastorate. We both have learned many things, and are hopefully the wiser for it. Yet rarely will I share those lessons, because there is usually some pain involved in the learning curve, that of a church member or my own. Some things are better left unsaid. 

Yet, today I was inspired to share a little bit about my life as a pastor's wife after speaking with a new mom at our church this morning. She had come to thank me for some unsolicited advice I had given her just last week regarding a health issue I observed in her child. She had followed my advice, and her child had dramatically improved in just a few days' time. 

And herein lies what I want to talk about: I do not like to give unsolicited advice, and rarely do it. I am talking about person-to-person advice, not in general terms such as on my blog. That in spite of the fact that like anyone else, I have opinions about many things. Furthermore, I believe my opinions to be right (duh - who knowingly adopts a faulty view??). Many times, I see something that I disagree with or even find alarming, yet I do not say anything. In fact, 9 times out of 10 when I wonder whether I should say something, I don't.

"Unsought advice is seldom heeded, and often resented." - Unknown 

There are many reasons for keeping my opinion to myself. 

- It's none of my business. Duh. Your life is yours to live as you choose. Even as the pastor's wife, I have to be very alarmed before I will give unsolicited advice.

- It can come across as rude. There's no all-around nice way to tell someone that you think they are wrong, or overlooking something important. 

- I could be wrong. It happens, trust me. ;) The last thing I want to do is worry someone that something might be seriously wrong, when I'm actually the one in the wrong. 

- It's risky. For the aforementioned reasons, there is a real chance that the recipient of my unsolicited advice will take offense. I am not one to want to give people one more reason to be offended. 

- It wastes time. As a mother of 11, my time is extremely limited. Taking a chance and spending my time giving someone unsolicited advice, which is likely to not be well received and go unheeded, is simply something I don't have time for.

- I might not have a solution. Identifying a problem, and having a solution, are two very different things. There is no point in pointing out something wrong in someone else's life, if I have no advice on how to fix it. 

I was thankful and encouraged today to know that my recent unsolicited advice had not only fallen on willing ears, but had yielded such great results, so soon. I had given similar advice other times, only to have the recipient take offense, not even consider my words, and then continue watching them (or worse, their child) suffer. 

The longer my husband is a pastor, the less I am willing to say anything, even to a fault. One glaring example that comes to mind are midwives. Sadly, there are many charlatans or clueless ones out there, and they are typically the ones with the sweetest personalities, the most effective referral system, or the lowest fees. More times than I care to remember, there have been midwives that moms  in our church have chosen, that I had serious concern about, but didn't say anything. I did not want to come across as telling other moms what midwife to choose, even as some particularly clueless ones have seriously hurt or endangered some of our moms. Even so, I was recently criticized yet again for having a "blacklist" of midwives that the 60 or more moms of childbearing age in our church can review before hiring anyone.

With that in mind, here's my unsolicited advice, but it's generally speaking: 

- If you want to know my opinion on your personal matter, you will most likely have to ask for it. And rest assured that if I do give you unsolicited personal advice, it was after much consideration and prayer, and never flippantly. 

- You may assume that if you have a pastor and wife who love and care for you, they will come to you if they notice anything concerning. They might, or like us they most often might not. Please do not mistake silence for agreement, or an approval of your choices. This is true in all walks of life.

- If you are facing a challenge, please reach out to those whom you trust for good advice. Don't assume they will come to you and volunteer their wisdom. 

- Before reaching out for advice, take some time to decide whom to seek advice from. One good rule of thumb is that you ask those who have succeeded, not those who have failed, in your particular area of concern. For instance, don't ask marriage advice of divorced people, child rearing advice from those with errant children, or health advice from the ill. 

- Pray that God would reveal His advice through the person you are going to approach, by laying the right words on their heart. I have done this myself countless times: telling God who I was going to ask for wisdom regarding a matter, and asking Him to give His answer through that person, then resting assured that I could follow that advice as if it had come down directly from God. 

And one final piece of advice: Beware the people who always know everything, and freely share it with anyone who will listen. Asking for advice requires humility, while spouting off advice left and right appeals to the prideful (and often clueless). Rule of thumb: the more unsolicited advice someone is willing to share, the more clueless or wrong they tend to be. 

Counsel in the heart of man is like deep water; but a man of understanding will draw it out. - Proverbs 20:5

Radical Unschooling

I have blogged about both unschooling and positive-only parenting before. 

Radical unschooling is the unholy union of these two concepts. If you thought both ideas by themselves were dangerous and foolish, the fallout of parenting failure when they are combined is exponential.

In a nutshell, "radical unschooling" means that parents do not enforce any rules for their kids, in ANY area of life, ever. You read that right. Kids do whatever they want, whenever they want. They have no set bed times, eat what they want when they want, are never forced or even coerced to obey their parents, have full 'body autonomy' including deciding if they want to shave their head at age 3 or if and when to take medicine, are not expected to do any school work, and are basically NEVER made to do anything they don't want to do. The parents' job is to cater to the child's every whim and thus enable them to turn into the wonderful humans they were destined to be. Except they don't. They grow into the wicked, entitled, lazy, spoiled young adults we see everywhere these days.

The 'philosophy' behind this (un?)parenting is that children are born innately wise, intuitive, pure, and sinless, and that if given the freedom to make their own choices not influenced by corrupted adults who are already messed up from 'authoritarian parenting,' they will naturally choose what is best and wisest for them.

Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him. (Proverbs 22:15)

The moms who fall for this nonsense then post on social media, wondering why their feral kids act like animals. They ask such deep questions as how to get their kids to stop playing video games and go to bed before the wee hours of the morning ("Don't worry, that's normal!"), how to stop their kids from eating only junk food ("Don't worry, that's normal!), how to stop their kids from assaulting others ("Don't worry, that's normal!"), how to stop a tantrum ("Don't worry, it's normal!) - you name it, it's all normal, and something kids will grow out of over time. Until then, hugs, good vibes, and lots of good luck to you!

"How would you all handle a 2 1/2 year old having a melt down in the middle of the night because you say no more breastfeeding so you can get some sleep? My toddler is getting worse with punching me very hard and spitting in my face. I try to push him away on the bed and he comes back fighting. I try to hold him and comfort him but he comes back fighting. He ends up crying to sleep. Am I just supposed to lay there and be punched/spit on? He doesn't listen to any words or reason. His raging wakes everyone since we all share a bed. I don't know what else to do."

What else to do? What has she done??? Comfort him in response to being assaulted? One person recommended "keeping a hand towel nearby for the spitting." Another wondered why the mom would wean the child at such a young age - mom should just take a nap in the afternoon to make up for lost night sleep.

If that same little tyrant were 160 lbs and 16-years old, he would kill his mother in a fit of rage. The only thing that is preventing him from doing so now is because he is lacking the physical strength, not the fact that he doesn't despise her THAT MUCH. 

My three (turning four in March) year old has started to self harm to express anger, in the form of biting or scratching herself. She uses this almost as a threat i.e. "I'm mad. I'm going to bite myself!"

This style of parenting is nothing short of child abuse. Children without boundaries and consequences are the most miserable creatures. They grow up to loathe others and themselves, are loathed by others, and daydream about suicide.

My 9 year old wants her nose pierced and I told her not until she's 13 or 14.. Is that a reasonable RU response?  

The overwhelming majority of responses were along the lines of "let her, and explore why you are so conflicted about her choice."

On the subject of natural consequences, how to handle stealing. My 11 yo took $10 of mine, lied until I stared her down long enough that she reached into her pocket & gave it back. [...] She does these "types" of things often.

General responses were: give her more allowance, figure out what she needs the money for, ask why she 'had' to steal it, and show her disappointment as the most effective punishment.

I could go on with horror stories from these insane parents. When dealing with the unsaved, nothing should surprise us. They are spiritually blind. They are foolish, yes. They raise monsters we all have to live with, yes. But even so, I pity them. They will never know the joy that children that are raised in the ways of the Lord can bring. All their labor is in vain.

The thing I find truly disturbing is when Christians fall for this nonsense. I am not just talking about "Christian Radical Unschooling," which yes, is a thing. I'm talking about mainstream, evangelical Christians who consider themselves 'conservatives' making the same kind of excuses about their little brats, which in due time turn out to be derelict young people and eventually worthless adults indistinguishable from their worldly peers. 

I am in another online group of Christian moms of large families that homeschool. Sounds pretty conservative, no? Sometimes, when I see the questions posted there and the responses, I have to double-check which group I'm in - the radical unschoolers or the Christian homeschool moms. 

This I have no pity for. "If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!" Christian parents turning out one bad child after another with a similar 'success rate' as the world is a terrible testimony. It's just as bad a testimony as the fact that divorce rates among professing Christians are the same as that of unbelievers. It is an assault on the validity of Bible principles.

Not like Germany is the bedrock of strict parenting these days or even was in my days, but being from East Germany and having had 'old-school' grandparents, I was raised in times and circumstances that were decades 'behind the times'. When we were newlyweds and young parents, I was often dumbfounded by permissive American parenting, where it is a virtue among many to let kids walk rough-shod over their parents and suffer it patiently.

These same parents would never put up with that kind of treatment from their spouses. Toddler screams at you? Normal. Husband screams at you? Emotional abuse - call the cops. Imagine if he hit his wife and spat on her like these kids are allowed to do!! Who in their right mind would say, "This too shall pass, keep a towel nearby for the spitting and try to separate yourself to another room." It's madness and folly!

I used to be told, "Just wait until you have a toddler!" When the first few of our kids made it past being toddlers with our sanity intact and our parenting still on track, it was, "Wait until you have a daughter!" So we had three in a row, all of which are sweet and kind and growing into godly young ladies. Then we heard, "Just wait until you have a teen!" Well, we have three now. They do suffer from some inevitable teen brain atrophy, but they are still godly, respectful kids who know their place in this family and are not malicious, just overgrown and sometimes clumsy pups on the cusp of productive adulthood. My kids are not perfect, but they are good kids who love the Lord and will grow up to walk in His ways. And as long as we parents have any say in the matter (which we do), they will reach adulthood without first bringing shame on themselves and us through being wicked in their young adult years.

And yet, bad parents never want to take responsibility for their offspring turning out a failure, one after the other. They might blame the other parent, they might come up with some bogus condition their child suffers from like ODD (oppositional defiance disorder), Asperger (or what used to be known as lacking social graces), their preacher being too nice/mean, the Bible being too strict, modern society corrupting everyone, or any number of excuses. To them, raising children is like rolling the dice. Some keep getting lucky, and they keep drawing the short end of the stick - but the fault is most certainly not with them, oh no! You just wait! It reminds me of divorced people who think there are only two kinds of marriages: those that have already failed, and those that are on the way to failure. Until you die having never divorced, your marriage is in question in their mind, even two, three, four, five decades later.

Misery truly loves company. Misery also hates those who succeed where they have failed. 

I'm here to tell you, this defeated, can't do attitude is not true. Let me be clear: my kids turning out right will have nothing, ZERO, to do with me being better than anyone else. It will be 100% by the grace of God, and applying HIS principles to child raising. If I can raise good kids, in spite of myself and my shortcomings, ANYONE can. Any idiot can follow Bible teaching, and have an end product that is far greater than the sum of its parts. To God be all the credit. All we have to do as parents is guide our kids in the fear and knowledge of the Lord. It's that simple. And: IT WORKS.

Simple does not mean easy, though. It might not be easy if we love ourselves more than our child, and care more about staying in good graces with them today rather than having them thank us later. The Bible says there are two critical ingredients to raising kids: the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Or in more simple terms: love them, and don't let them walk all over you. Parents who raise derelicts love themselves, and are too lazy to put an end to bad behavior, thus going against both of these points.

Kids do not turn out right overnight, and they are not lost overnight. They continue for many years on the path of right, lit by God's word, or they continue down the way of transgressors, unchecked for many years. There are a thousand parenting decisions made over the course of many years that keep kids on one path, or the other.

When the 18-month old first throws herself on the floor in an angry response to being told "no", one quick swat is likely to end that behavior (and other ones like it) from ever manifesting again. Choose to distract and coddle the child instead, and soon you will have a screaming 3-year old on your hands that has made a horrible habit of pitching fits to get what they want. Breaking that bad habit is a lot harder at that point, so the parent is even less likely to do it than they were two years earlier. Continue to give in to the whining and tantrums, and you will soon have an entitled monster on your hands. The problem escalates more and more. By the time kids are in their teen years, the tracks are almost irreversibly set. The train is in motion and at full speed. The train wreck is inevitable. When it happens, the parents will sit back and claim it's not their fault, but either they are lying, or the Bible is not true.

Ungodly children are the result of lazy, selfish parenting gone wrong from the start, and never corrected. If it were a roll of the dice, "having faithful children" would not be a prerequisite for the pastor.

Here's a great sermon that ties in with this post:

What (not) to say at Costco

While my oldest three were at work today, I took the six younger kids (Miriam and down) to Costco. Trips to Costco are always fun!

Before I get into that, I need to back up to this morning. Boaz was playing in the front yard, when one of his sisters accidentally slammed his elbow into the concrete planter. It cut his skin, and bruised his elbow. I applied arnica and gave him an ice pack, and he soon forgot all about it. 

But back to Costco. As we were making our way around, we kept running into the same people, because everyone walks around the store in a similar order and speed. There was an older gentleman in the store whose right arm had been amputated at the shoulder. His shirt sleeve was hanging down empty. 

We had passed him several times and I was wondering if the little kids would comment on it, but was thankful that they didn't. Until they did. To be more specific, we had just rounded the corner from where the man was at when Stephen, loudly and in his squeaky voice, blurted out: "Mom, that man's arm broke off!" It was embarrassing, but funny - like he was some sort of Lego minifigure that had lost an arm. Thankfully we were probably out of earshot.

I leaned down to Stephen and quietly explained to him: "His arm did not break off. That's called an amputation. Sometimes, if you get hurt really bad, the doctors have to cut off one of your limbs to save your life. But it's not polite to stare, point, or loudly talk about it."

Boaz had overheard this. He looked thoughtful for a moment, then, with a worried look, declared: "Mom, my arm is feeling MUCH BETTER now!"

The girls and I all broke out laughing. I was crying laughing. I had forgotten all about his hurt elbow from earlier, but he must have gotten worried that it was hurt badly enough to possibly require amputation!!!

Sigh... kids! We were still laughing when the man rounded the corner again. I hope he didn't think we were laughing about him.

We were ourselves on the receiving end of stupid comments, too. 

Do you want to know what the #1 most irritating thing is that strangers in public say to me? I mean, I'm used to comments about my family size. It's understandable that my little troupe moving through a store solicits comments. I don't mind them. Usually they make me smile - except this one:

"You sure have your hands full!" Ugh - it's rude and lame!

But - it can be topped! Yes! Are you ready?

"You sure have your hands full today!"

Newsflash: either these are my kids, in which case they are my kids every day and I always 'have my hands full'. Or, I stopped by rent-a-kid on the way to Costco because it's so much fun bringing a half dozen kids that are not mine to Costco on a Saturday that also happens to be Veteran's Day. Fat chance, right? 

No, actually, my hands were NOT fuller than anyone else's. The two youngest were sitting up in the cart nicely and silently, the next two were holding on to the sides of the cart and walking along peacefully, and the two oldest girls were walking close by. The kids are not always angelic at the store, but they always are when people make this stupid comment. Because making snide remarks as a mom dealing with a toddler on meltdown is not ok by anyone's standards. 

Every single other person in Costco was also using both their hands to push the ginormous carts. Except for the gentleman with the amputated arm, but his hand was just as full as everyone's two hands. So by any standard, my hands were no fuller than anyone else's. It's an insult to the kids - like they are nuisance by default, even when they are silently trudging through the store.

My most polite response to this incredibly dull, redundant, and insulting comment is to look the person in the eye with a straight face, glare at them for a second, and walk by without otherwise responding. If they say it with any amount of snark in their voice, I smile really big and sweetly retort, "Oh, I have never heard that before!" 

Today called for the latter. The woman who said it was working at a vendor display for an indoor sky diving place. As part of that, she was wearing a ridiculously unflattering full-body suit. She looked at me with pity, when she looked much more pitiful. So yes, she got the the smiling "Oh you are so clever!" response. 

Imagine if I started confronting people in public about the lack of children with them. "Your hands sure are empty today!"

Ah, fun times! We ended on a high note when the cashier commented on how well behaved the kids were being. She asked me how many I had. I patted my belly and said, "This is number 10." "Ten babies! Holy cow! You have a ways to go, my grandma had 17." I told her I didn't know if I had it in me to have that many. 

Then she said the nicest thing to say to a mom of many, in case you are taking notes by now: "You look great!" Which is worlds nicer than the much more common, "You look great for having nine kids!"  That caveat sounds a bit too much like: You look like a hot mess, but all things considered, I guess you look ok." I know that's not what people mean (or at least I hope so), but the compliment without the caveat is definitely a lot nicer. 

So to recap what we learned at Costco today: If you see a busy mom at the store, don't add insult to injury by making her feel like a hot mess. And don't break down laughing near the disabled. 

Whole grains, phytic acid, and cavities

Ever since our oldest, Solomon, was born and then started eating solids about 15 years ago, I have been on a quest to learn about natural health and about how to feed our family the healthiest way possible.

I say 'quest' because sifting through all the information, much of it contradictory, is nothing short of a search for the Holy Grail.

Thankfully, with the Bible as our guide, many healthy eating fads can be dismissed out-of-hand, such as (but not limited to):

- being a vegetarian, vegan, or fruitarian

- vilifying butter, salt, natural sweeteners, and/or dairy products,

- eating only 'raw

- eating low-carb ('paleo' or Atkins)

etc.

I am not saying it is sinful to eat in any of the aforementioned ways. In fact, some medical conditions could be bettered by temporarily switching to a radically different and restricted way of eating. For instance, an obese person would do well to cut back on their fat and dairy consumption for a season for the benefit of losing weight. Cancer cells and gall/kidney stones can be reduced or sometimes even eliminated through a radical juice fast that is all raw and vegetarian.

However, this blog post deals with everyday eating for healthy people, not temporary restrictive diets that address an acute illness.

So let's talk about a sustainable, long-term diet that the average person living today can follow and be healthy, because let's face it - nobody wants you to come to the family holiday gathering and bring your special 'kale and kelp brownies sweetened with nothing but love'.

One of the big things that has been pushed for the last 30 years or so is whole grains and the critical part they supposedly play in a healthy, balanced diet. We're talking whole wheat bread products as opposed to 'white', rolled or steel-cut oats vs. quick, brown rice vs. white, etc.

In America, well over 90% of all bread products are made from wheat. When I say 'wheat', I mean the grain called wheat. Some people refer to all whole wheat products as 'wheat', and to all bread products made from all-purpose white flour as 'white' - as in, "Do you want that on wheat bread or white?' Since both whole wheat flour as well as all-purpose flour are made from wheat, saying 'wheat vs. white' is a confusing and silly distinction.

The difference between the two is that whole wheat flour is made from the entire wheat kernel and contains the hull and endosperm, whereas white flour has been stripped of anything but the starchy part of the wheat kernel.

The health benefits to using the whole kernel are:

1. added fiber: Whole wheat retains all the fiber that is found in the hull. Fiber is important to help buffer the impact of carbohydrates on blood sugar, keeps us fuller longer, and helps keep us regular and in good gut health because this roughage both retains water, as well as 'scrubs' the GI tract from the inside.

2. vitamins and minerals: Whole wheat contains 23 vitamins and minerals that are no longer present when only the white starchy part is made into all-purpose flour. This is why all purpose flour is often 'enriched' with various B vitamins.

However, one fact that is virtually never mentioned is that whole wheat and in fact all whole grains (like oats, barley, rye, rice, etc.) also contain high levels of phytic acid.

These are listed in alphabetical order, not by greatest to least amount. Notice how high the % amounts of phytic acid are for the bran (whole grain) parts of wheat and rice, staples in most American diets.

Phytic acid, while naturally occurring, is an anti-nutrient, which means it robs our bodies of nutrients. It has rather devastating effects on bone health. In order for our bodies to rid themselves of phytic acid, it must bind to other minerals, most notably calcium and magnesium. Often, for lack of these nutrients in our diet, our bodies will draw these minerals from our teeth and bones.

This is very similar to the way phosphoric acid in sodas leech minerals from our bones and cause osteoporosis, a well-accepted and long-known fact. Phytic acid basically does the same.

There are ways to drastically reduce the amount of phytic acid in grains, nuts, and legumes. They are what I call the '3 S's':

- soaking

- sprouting

- souring

In this blog post, I am predominantly talking about whole grains, because they contain far higher levels of phytic acid than legumes and nuts. I do soak legumes overnight before cooking or use canned (which are soaked), and we don't eat a lot of nuts, so those are non-issues for us. The human body is designed to withstand a certain amount of junk coming in. Problems arise when junk is coming in faster than the 'funnel' of the human body can handle. 

The cooking methods of centuries past reflect the need for these traditional practices. Grains were often soaked repeatedly and for extended periods of time, not just in plain water but whey or vinegar (both of which are fermented as thus also address the 'souring' aspect). After the grains were soaked, dried, and made into flour, they were leavened by being made into sourdough, as modern leavening agents like quick yeast and baking powder had not been invented yet, which likewise breaks down phytic acid.

In spite of all these efforts, all throughout history, cultures who depended heavily on grains for nutrition have had poor bone health, whereas cultures that lived predominantly on meats and fats (like the Inuit and Mongolians) had excellent teeth and bones.

Before cutting out whole grains, I was not just making everything from whole wheat, I was even grinding my own wheat fresh right before baking. Grinding wheat fresh maintains all its nutrients, many of which lose their potency after being milled. I am guessing that the phytic acid in freshly milled flour is likewise more potent than that in 'stale' flour.  On the other hand, I had switched to using all sourdough leavened products for years. While this was great for gut health, it did not stop the cavities. It seems souring alone was not enough to break down the harmful levels of phytic acid. 

Desperate times call for desperate measures. If I lived in a time and day when the availability of foods is severely limited, fresh produce was hard to come by due to climate, and all that was consistently available for me to feed my family on is grain, then yes, I would need to learn to process it in a way that I could access those vitamins and minerals they contain while eliminating their anti-nutrients.

But - I live in 21st century America. I have easy and affordable access year-round to a wide range of foods from around the world with all their vitamins, minerals, and fiber through the abundance of produce and other nutrient-dense foods at my fingertips.

So while I theoretically could keep my own pasture-fed cow, whom I milk bright and early every day and then make cheese so I can have whey to soak my homegrown ancient grains in, which I then also sprout in my clean spring-water and then dry in the sun, before hand-milling them on a low-impact, low-heat grain mill, turning them into loaves of bread with my wild-fermented sourdough starter, all so I can tap into the aforementioned benefits of whole grains...

... I cold also just use plain all-purpose flour, and rest assured that I am getting those same nutrients from the rest of my diet.

More importantly yet, I will NOT be dealing with the incessant cavities that come from eating whole grains with their phytic acid. There is a good book on tooth decay (here) that suggests cutting out grains to get around the phytic acid. That is one possibility. Personally, I don't want to go the rest of my life without eating pizza, croissants, pies, and all the other wonderful bread products we get from grains. Their grain-free alternatives are never as good.

The other possibility, the one I have chosen for the last couple of years, is to only use grain products that have been stripped of all but their white starchy part: all-purpose flour, white rice, quick oats, etc. Obviously, these should not be consumed in such copious amounts that they lead to obesity, type II diabetes, or replace other nutrient-dense foods in the diet.

I made this switch right around the same time as I stopped using all modern wheat and have instead gone to using only einkorn, an ancient form of wheat that is genetically very different from post-1800's wheat).

I have noticed several very exciting changes since cutting out whole grains. The one I want to focus on today is cavities. Or rather, NO MORE CAVITIES!

All kids went to the dentist in March for checkups and cleanings. For years, we had been taking them every six months. For years, in spite of diligent home care (flossing, brushing twice daily), daily fermented cod liver oil and a whole-foods-based multivitamin, little to no candy and very limited sugar consumption, homemade bone broths, daily raw dairy with its bone-building butterfat, and a near-100% organic diet, all kids would have new cavities at every checkup. It was expensive and frustrating, most of all because I knew there must be some underlying cause.

The dentist we first used was good, but she was an hour's drive away. Her hygienist also kept telling me the cavities were a result of not giving the kids fluoride, which I found annoying. As our family grew, the drive out there not just for checkups but the inevitable fillings got to be too much.

I then switched to a 'naturopathic' dentist that was closer. Our dental insurance did not cover her, so the cost was exorbitant. She did not push fluoride, but pushed xylitol instead, which destroys the GI tract instead of teeth. She also did absolutely shoddy work. Many of the fillings she did fell out. They were warrantied for two years, but it's a bit much to ask kids to get fillings redone because her work was so poor.

After seeing her for a couple of years, I stopped going there, intending to find a new dentist. Six months turned into a year, I got busy, and next thing I knew almost three years had passed since some of the kids had been seen last. The dentist who did the kids' tongue tie revisions did such an outstanding job that I switched their dental care to her, too.

The outcome: in spite of zero checkups and cleanings for about 3 years, in spite of the kids having more sugar than ever before because the big kids buy their own candy and sodas now, and in spite of them being much more hit and miss with taking their vitamins and fish oil, there were ZERO new cavities in any of the eight oldest kids. For the three oldest, who had all their fillings in their baby teeth which they have since lost, this meant zero remaining fillings in their mouths. Same for the two youngest boys, who never developed any cavities in their baby teeth. The three middle girls have only old cavities and fillings, which will eventually fall out when they lose their baby teeth. Compare this with 2-3 new cavities each every six months before this, both with the conventional as well as the naturopathic dentist.

When I myself went to a new dentist in April, I likewise had ZERO new cavities, and only two old ones that I had been keeping an eye on. I typically get 2-4 new cavities with every pregnancy just from all the throwing up alone. Between my morning sickness having been much better the last two pregnancies, plus the lack of whole grains for the last two years, I believe this had made all the difference. I do not anticipate new cavities in the future.

I am convinced beyond any shadow of a doubt that this is due to cutting out whole grains and their anti-nutrients. THAT is the only thing that has changed in the kids' diet. I explained my theory to the dentist and she thought it was very likely that I was right. I don't know how much of a part using einkorn vs. wheat plays - I think the effect of that is mostly just gut health because the gluten in einkorn does not damage the gut like modern wheat does.

I realize this is not party line. I believe just as the low-fat fad has proven destructive to health, we were likewise sold a bill of goods in whole grains. For what it's worth, I am sharing my anecdotal experience here for others who are left scratching their heads at why their otherwise perfectly healthy child(ren) are having cavities in spite of perfect diet and home care.

As a side note, the kids have suffered zero ill health effects from eating these 'simple' white grains. Isaac and Becca no longer have seasonal asthma since cutting out wheat, none of them have gotten 'fat', their behavior has not gone haywire from white flour converting into sugar too quickly, etc. And let's face it - white flour products just taste so much better! I continue to make many leavened products like waffles, pizza, and bread with sourdough starter. You can see my video for our 'daily bread' here. 

I have one other huge benefit that has come from cutting out whole grains that I will share in an upcoming blog post. How's that for a cliff hanger? ;)

The destructive effects of birth control on marriage

Then said Elkanah her husband to her, Hannah, why weepest thou? and why eatest thou not? and why is thy heart grieved? am not I better to thee than ten sons? (I Samuel 1:8)

I wonder if  every mother who has ever read the above verse laughed a little on the inside and thought, "No."

  

Before you say I must not love my husband very much, consider this: Which mother would ever choose one of her own children over ten of them? So if even Elkanah's own mother, who loved him like only a mother can, would not have chosen him over ten other of her children, I think it's safe to assume that Hannah didn't feel that way, either. And chances are, the same is true for any wife anywhere, at any time in history.

Birth control destroys marriages on many levels. There are detrimental physical effects such as decreased desire and altering women's perception of what they want in a man (until they get off the artificial hormones and discover they can't stand the guy any longer). There are spiritual effects such as reinforcing selfishness and showing a lack of faith in God's provision, both of which are critical components of a failed marriage. There are the unspoken insults to the other spouse and children - I don't want your kids, I don't want any more of you. There is even the very practical aspect that when there are no children in the home, it is far easier and more likely for one spouse to commit adultery. I am not saying it is right, I am just saying statistics show us these are all factors contributing to the downfall of marriage.

Yet, every single day, men are staking their marriage on the wrong assumption that their wife would rather have them than children. I say "men" because in virtually all cases where couples intentionally prevent having children, the driving force behind that decision is the man, or at the very least he is failing to win over his wife to where she would desire children. Virtually all women, especially Christians who love the Lord and trust in his provision, would want nothing more than children if they felt supported and appreciated, and felt that the children were a great source of joy to her husband. If your wife does not want a baby, you have failed to make her feel safe, loved, and supported. She doesn't want children because she doesn't want more of YOU. She doesn't want to hear you gripe more about the finances, or how the kids are a burden, or how you wish you could do XYZ instead. Nobody wants to have kids with a selfish whiner who is a spiritual weakling.

It is no coincidence that permanent birth control measures are virtually always pushed and performed during pregnancy or birth - when people are least likely to want another child. Because newsflash - nobody wants to think about running another marathon while they are already in a race (or just finished one). Nobody wants to think of the next meal when they are still stuffed from the last. Nobody wants another baby right after giving birth. But give it some time, and as the baby grows older, those desires will wake once more, and get stronger and stronger as time goes by.

So men, before you do something permanent like getting a vasectomy or pushing your wife into a tubal ligation, please consider that sooner or later, your wife will come to the painful realization that she would like to have more children, even if you don't. And when she does, she might decide to leave you and try for more children with another man. You certainly wouldn't be the first man to have this happen to you. I have seen this play out in my circle of (Christian!) friends and acquaintances many times. 

Even if your wife doesn't leave you for the express purpose of seeking children elsewhere (and she shouldn't), she is likely to harbor complete disappointment in and resentment toward you, neither of which make fertile ground for a long and happy marriage. Just check Google for the sad stories of wives whose husbands are taking from them the one thing every normal woman wants more than anything else, and you can see how this strain may eventually lead to the destruction of their marriage.

There are three things that are never satisfied, yea, four things say not, It is enough: The grave; and the barren womb; the earth that is not filled with water; and the fire that saith not, It is enough. (Proverbs 30:15, 16)

A harsh truth? Yes. Let the scoffers scoff, and let those who have not yet made these mistakes learn and beware. Can children be a burden on marriage? To the selfish, yes. To those who are not Christians and know nothing of the provision of God, yes. But to the children of God, there is no greater blessing this side of heaven than having kids. Depriving your spouse of God's greatest blessing will severely undermine if not destroy your marriage.

On the flipside, rest assured that nothing will ever make your wife love you more than giving her the children she wants, supporting the family (financially and otherwise), making the necessary sacrifices without grudging, and building her up when she is at the end of her rope.

Fatal Forgetfulness

Question: What kind of person could ever forget their child in the car?

Source

Answer: Me. You.  Anyone.

Already this year, 27 children have perished in hots cars, which is one more than died in all of last year. On average, there are 37 hot car deaths in the US per year. We usually only hear about the fatalities, or some of the very near misses. Many, many more times through fortunate circumstances or some last minute reminder, children are forgotten but recovered quickly and unharmed.

Every time one of these heartbreaking stories hits the news, the comments are overwhelmingly angry and accusatory, along the lines of: 

Someone should lock them in the car on a hot summer day!

Forgot? Yeah right! I bet they just wanted to get rid of the child.

I bet they didn't forget their cell phone.

Of course, such tragic loss comes as a shock to any parent. We all want to think WE could never do such a thing. By condemning the "guilty," we tell ourselves that great parents such as ourselves could NEVER forget their baby in a car. 

But the truth is, anyone is capable of forgetting their child in a car. Doctors, lawyers, and a rocket scientist have all made the same fatal mistake that the Wal-Mart employee made in Texas yesterday. Moms and dads, rich and poor, old and young of every race are equally likely to forget their child, because it has nothing to do with our parenting, but all to do with the human brain. 

Our brains are designed to operate largely by habit. By not having to waste much thought on familiar processes, our brains are freed up to respond more efficiently to unfamiliar issues that arise. This habit loop is a crucial aspect of how our brains work and process data without burning out. The part of the brain responsible for recall ("I have the baby with me today") is switched off, while we operate on the part of the brain that runs on habit (like a typical commute).

For instance, the first time you back out of your driveway in a new vehicle, it will take all of your concentration and focus. By the time you have done it for months, you never even give it a single thought. Your habit loop takes over the minute you start the engine, and you can back out of the driveway and go clear across town on a familiar drive (such as a commute) without having any recollection of it or any of the details surrounding it. This is the same reason why you might ask your husband to stop at the store on the way home from work, and he completely forgets until he walks in the front door and is reminded the moment he sees you. He knew he wanted to stop at the store, but habit took over and he followed his usual routine.

Tragedy strikes when there is a perfect storm - a change in routine (such as Dad taking the baby when he doesn't usually do so), while there are other stress factors that occupy the active part of his brain (an important business call, stress at work, etc.), and all reminders fall through. He KNOWS that he is supposed to drop the baby off at day care that day because mom can't do it, but the minute he sits down in the driver seat, his brain goes on autopilot. Unless the baby cries or in some other way reminds him that she is there, he might forget about her, and tragedy ensues. 

I have personally known and heard of great parents who have forgotten their child in a car briefly and thankfully without suffering harm. It seems that almost every time I talk about this topic with parents, they suddenly recall a time they almost forgot their child in the car. It has nothing to do with what kind of a parent they are. It's simply a terrible error stemming from the way the human brain works. An attitude of "That could never happen to me!" is a very dangerous one to have. 

To be forewarned is to be forearmed. Some safety protocols that help prevent a tragedy are:

- Make a habit of visually checking every car seat, every time before closing the car doors. 

- Teach your older children to make a habit of checking for siblings in their rows before exiting the vehicle. Teach them to be extra vigilant when they are in the care of someone besides their main care giver.

- When traveling with just a baby, leave your purse/briefcase in the back by their car seat, and leave an item of the baby (like a blanket) in the spot you normally keep your purse. When you get to where you are going, this will jog your memory if necessary. It is not recommended to have a permanent reminder up front near the driver, such as a decal hanging from the mirror, because it will soon become so familiar that it will become part of the habit to see it, making it ineffective. 

- If your child goes to daycare, have a plan that they call you if your child does not show up on a day that they are expected. 

- Don't be afraid to call/text and check in with any non-regular care giver. 

Some other excellent resources are Kids and Cars and http://noheatstroke.org/. Their websites have a lot of great information and helpful articles. If you like their Facebook page, you will get plenty of reminders in your newsfeed to keep the safety of children around cars at the forefront of your mind. This article has some insightful stats. The book "The Power of Habit" has a whole chapter dedicated to this topic, and explains the underlying science well. It is a great read, I highly recommend it!

Parents whose children died in a hot car already have their lives destroyed by guilt. Let's not compound it, and let's not fool ourselves into thinking it could never happen to us. I doubt there is a parent who could honestly claim that in all their years of raising a child, there was never a situation that could have turned out far worse if it were not for the grace of God. Remember: There but for the grace of God go I (and you).

Micheal Pearl Makes a Fool of Himself (along with a lot of other Christians)

Remember when the Josh Duggar scandal first broke in May? I blogged about my thoughts on the situation at the time.

Back then, many naive Christians afraid to lose their favorite TV show started falling all over themselves not condemning Josh Duggar's actions (molesting four of his own sisters), but rather condemning those who thought his actions were inexcusable under any circumstances, those who were angered by the family basically portraying a lie, those who were calling out the family's hypocrisy.

 (source here)

After just a brief period of silence following the initial shock, many Christians with a public platform also came out in defense of Josh Duggar. Some that come to mind are Mike Huckabee, Matt Walsh, Kent Hovind, Michael Seewald, and many others. Fans by the thousands were calling for TLC to bring the show back, starting online petitions, and leaving tens of thousands of supportive comments and messages on social media.

(Note: Matt Walsh and Michael Seewald have since changed their tune.)

I understand that if people committed sins, even serious ones, in the past and have since sought forgiveness and changed their ways, we should give them a fresh start, and not even mention those past failures.

However, I don't believe that this applies to serious, harmful crimes like pedophilia that deserve the death penalty. Such people are beyond repair, or what the Bible calls reprobates - Romans 1 says they have "eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin." Tell me that doesn't describe Josh Duggar to a T! And when those same perpetrators then lift themselves up to national stardom, revolving entire seasons of their TV show around telling us how they supposedly stayed pure until marriage, it just becomes ridiculously hypocritical, and an object of public scrutiny and derision. If the Duggars seek the attention of millions of viewers, they cannot then hide behind "that's a private matter" when it's inconvenient. Remember, the only reason why 99.9% of us have ever even heard of them in the first place is because they chose to make their lives very public. Anyone with the least bit of prudence or discernment should have known that such a skeleton in the closet would inevitably be discovered. Evidently, the love of fame, money, and stardom won out.

Personally, back in May I found it very alarming how many claimed that Josh's actions were a fairly normal occurrence, something all people are tempted by, and not a worse sin than regular everyday sins. I also blogged about that.

(source here)

LOL about the "anonymous members!" Nothing electronic is ever truly anonymous. Be sure your sin will find you out!

Then, the latest scandal broke. In and of itself, the fact that a man was looking at porn or committing adultery is not really shocking these days, nor does it make someone a reprobate. Even David was an adulterer. The shocking aspect was the fact that Josh Duggar had been living a double life of the worst kind. His latest admissions threw even the good-thinking Christians for a loop, as the overwhelming reason why we were supposed to have forgiven Josh Duggar was the fact that the had allegedly repented, and was a new man. Which, clearly, he was not. And those who had blindly defended his actions not because they were excusable, but because they liked the family, had egg on their faces. Imagine if it came to light that Obama had a similar past as Josh Duggar - would Christians everywhere rally around him in support, proclaiming forgiveness, and insisting that it did not at all reflect on the current state of his character?

(source here)

Right in the middle of all this coming to light, I received the current issue of the "No Greater Joy" magazine in the mail, with the feature article being "Two-Front War on Christianity", written by Micheal Pearl. Or, as my husband calls him, the "homeless looking guy." Most people know him for his controversial book, "To Train Up a Child."

You can still find the article here, though after the latest details about Josh Duggar coming out, I cannot for the life of me understand why they would not pull the article and post an admission of having judged falsely, along with an apology.

It became apparent right away as I read the article that it had been written and the magazine mailed out at the worst possible time - late enough to publish right as the second scandal broke, but early enough to get it out the door before the new issues came to light.

The article talks about how Christianity is facing war on two fronts: on one had from the world, the persecution coming from unbelievers. Secondly, from so-called "Christian Cannibalism." This is the part of the article I want to focus on.
 

 (source here)

There were many ridiculous points made in the article, but I will focus on the worst ones. They are representative of the nonsense that Christians everywhere have been repeating during this scandal.

• "The second - and more destructive - wave in the war on Christianity is coming from within our own ranks. The actual physical persecution of Christians will not amount to much," "That is the disease that is killing the church," "The real threat to the church and modern Christian family is [...] coming from the pew in front of you"

Basically, forget everything you have read in Revelation about the Antichrist making war with Christians. The real danger according to Micheal Pearl are other Christians. #facepalm

•  "many Christians have been induced to side with the accusers of the brethren," "blogs and Facebook are filled with Christian cannibalism," "Christians pile on like hungry wolves," Christians [...] loudly condemning the allegedly errant one"

This is not even factually true. The vast majority of Christians showed nothing but support and forgiveness for Josh Duggar. Even if it were true, that would not make it wrong, because we as Christians are supposed to judge righteously, show discernment, and warn others of evil perpetrators - not hush up about dangerous predators.

• "Duggars were under attack," 

 Nobody attacked the Duggars. Their child did an evil deed, and brought this on the rest of the family. Would we say that a criminal on trial is "under attack?" Of course not.

•   "I was highly impressed and proud to be a fellow believer with such an amazing family," "they handled the situation with their son in the best of all possible ways," "a godly response to a problem"

Sure! They did, in fact, do so well that we now know (some of) the rest of the story. ***sarcasm*** Let's judge the tree of the Duggar's parenting by its fruit: it's rotten. Their son DID NOT repent and forsake. Whatever they did to address the problem failed miserably.

I'd like to make one thing clear: either the parents want to say their 15-year old acted as a foolish child, and should not be held accountable for the sins of his youth. In that case, the responsibility lies with the parents, and they have to accept the fact that they failed.

Or they could say that at age 15, he should have known better, and that he was making his own decisions contrary to his upbringing and his parents' moral code, in which case they can no longer use his age as an excuse for his actions. 

• "a problem that affects over 50% of the homes in America, including Christian homes" [referring to incest and molestation]

In what universe, Micheal Pearl? Surely, SOME Christian (in name only) homes face this problem. But most definitely not 50% of them. Cases such as this almost exclusively occur in broken homes, where derelict step-relatives and boyfriends commit evil acts against children. The Duggars are the exception that proves the rule, and even in their case, I am certain that Josh himself was first the victim of sexual assault himself.

So, yes, as much as I hate to be right in these types of situations, I must say "I told you so" when it comes to Josh Duggar.

Why is it so important to point out the fallacies in Pearl's article? Because Christians need to be warned, not told to simply assume the best about dangerous predators who self-identify as "being cured." They need to be taught how to recognize signs of impending doom, not close their eyes, plug their ears, stick their heads in the sand and pretend all is fine in spite of glaring warning signs. Maybe that explains why Micheal Pearl thinks that incest is to be expected in 50% of all households.

In order to protect our loved ones, it is vitally important to understand that cases such as that of Josh Duggar are NOT random and unpredictable, not something that can befall anyone, not something that there are no warning signs of. If you have not yet done so, please read my previous blog post of why there is not a pedophile lurking inside all of us. 

Please also watch this sermon, and learn the doctrine of someone becoming a reprobate.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Side note: I have made video's against Michael Pearl's abominable parenting book here, and another video about his creepy courtship and marriage here. 

Breastfeeding and Modesty

Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. - Ecclesiastes 12:13

A recent status shared by my husband on his Facebook wall has made me realize how much confusion there is amongst Christian ladies and mothers regarding breastfeeding and the question of modesty.

As the verse at the top of this post says, it is important that we look at God's commandment(s) regarding this issue, so we know what to follow rather than being led by our sex-crazed society that puts women on birth control wholesale, and sees them mostly as objects to gratify men's lusts rather than as nurturers and mothers.

First off, let's see how God defines nakedness. 

Exodus 28:42  And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:

nakedness = loins unto the thighs, or what we would call waist to the top of the knee

Isaiah 20:4  So shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and the Ethiopians captives, young and old, naked and barefoot, even with their buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt

God in Leviticus 18 talks about all sorts of scenarios between both men and women of who should not uncover who's nakedness, but there is no alternative definition of nakedness given for women that expands it to include the upper body. 

Quite to the contrary, by relating "uncovering a woman's nakedness" with "uncovering the fountain of her blood," the Bible reiterates that nakedness is referring to the part of the body from waist to knee (loins and thighs in Bible words). 

Leviticus 18:19  Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness. 

Leviticus 20:18  And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.

THAT is the only correct definition of nakedness - loins to thighs. My husband has been preaching this all along, even as far back as 2006.

Not radical Islam that says a woman must be covered literally from head to toe, including gloves and a screen over her eyes, because virtually any part of a woman's body can be sensual in nature to men. Examples are: dainty feet, luscious lips, tender eyes, a perfectly curved calf, hair in soft curls, feminine hands, etc.

Not the nudist idea that says if you have a hat on you are not naked.

Sometimes, vague verses are used to try and teach for commandments the doctrines of men, such as 

1 Corinthinans 11:14  Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 

The argument being that even though the Bible does not define breasts as nakedness, we all know that they are. Well, we DON'T all know that, and one cannot just add to God's Word to suit their opinions or "common sense." In the passage in Corinthians, God does not leave us to guess what correct hair length is, along the lines of, "Well, I don't need to talk about hair length, because you all know about that in your heart anyway." On the contrary, God devotes a huge section to telling us about the length of men's hair and women's hair, and He just follows it up with a comment that even just nature itself also confirms this law of God. Get it? Nature confirms the law as fully expressed in the Bible, it does not substitute for the law, or generate it. The verse does not give someone who feels in their heart that something is right or wrong a cart blanche to impose that opinion on others.

Nakedness is a very shameful sin, except between husband and wife. As such, God gave us clear, consistent commandments in the Bible as to what defines nakedness. It is not left up to personal opinions that disregard the Bible. The upper body is never once defined as nakedness, and I defy anyone to post a verse to the contrary. 

Breasts, breast, breasts

If the word "breast" makes you cringe, consider this: the Bible uses "breast" 18 times, "breasts" 27 times, "paps" 4 times, and "teats" 3 times. 

Indeed, if the word "breast" makes you cringe on the inside, you have been influenced (and not for the better) by our weird, twisted society that views women only as objects for the sexual gratification of men since reproduction has all but gone by the wayside, an afterthought of sorts. Breasts have been blown out of proportion as sexual objects because we have lost touch with the fact that women are mothers and nurturers first and foremost. Under normal circumstances, a woman's breasts will be used ten times as often to feed a baby, than to satisfy their husband's righteous desires.

To further illustrate my point of breasts being overly sexualized, consider this: it is entirely acceptable to use the word "nipple," but only in the context of "bottle nipple." We even try to make them look and feel and function as close to the real deal as possible, yet nobody bats an eye if you pull your fancy breast-replica bottle nipple out, or even drop it off with baby in the nursery.

Personally, I have always found these rubber replicas to be far more explicit than a woman breastfeeding without a cover, since the real nipple is actually in the baby's mouth and out of view. If someone made a replica of the part of men's or women's private parts that the Bible defines as nakedness, I certainly wouldn't want to show and pass that around any more than the real thing, because even a replica would still be obscene. 

If breasts are nakedness, or even just terribly immodest, why are we publicly displaying these life-like replicas without so much as a blush?

Before you pass out, read on, because then there is 

The question of modesty

1Timothy 2:9  In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 

Proverbs 31:25  Strength and honour are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come.

Are breasts sexually appealing? Of course they can be! Is that their primary or even predominant function? No. 

Many guys find ladies' feet and/or calves appealing, too. In fact, for decades, many churches taught that ladies ought always to wear closed shoes and hosiery in order to not lead men into lusting after them. On the other hand, there is an entire style of shoes - high heels - that accentuates this part of ladies' bodies. But the primary function of our feet is still to get us from point A to point B, not to strut around and get attention. You will never see me wearing such "hooker shoes". Not because they expose my nakedness (because they don't), but because they are immodest, drawing attention to my body merely for the sake of drawing attention, rather than for any practical purpose. It is the presentation that makes such displays immodest, not the very fact that I have feet, that I use them, and that I don't cover them in tights and closed shoes. 

By the same token, if women go topless, have plunging necklines over push-up bras, have implants, show cleavage, etc. they are doing all this for the sensual and vain reason of putting their body on display. Immodesty = seeking attention

A woman breastfeeding, on the other hand, is doing so 100% for the express and practical purpose of feeding her child. She is not seeking the attention of gawkers, and is therefore not immodest. 

By this correct definition of immodesty, a woman who struts around in high heels, with a fancy hairdo, covered in jewelry and make-up is still immodest, even if she covers up when she breastfeeds, because she is seeking to draw vain attention to her physical features. 

Lamentations 4:3  Even the sea monsters draw out the breast, they give suck to their young ones: the daughter of my people is become cruel, like the ostriches in the wilderness.

Here is a quick science lesson: whales (or sea monsters, as the Bible calls them) do not actually have breasts in the sense of that being some appendage like an udder; they have mammary slits. Nor do they have anywhere to pull these breasts out of, nor do they have hands to pull them out with. God is using this metaphor to say that even whales do more for their young than these wicked women, who should be the ones drawing out the breast and giving suck to their young. 

Drawing the breast out of where? The clothes, of course, since there is nothing else to pull them out of. Drawing out the breast, to then cover it with a blanket? Hardly!

Why not just cover up?

Well, why don't YOU eat your meals under a blanket? There are many reasons, such as 

- heat and stuffiness for mom and baby

- baby wants to see mom

- mom wants to see baby

- baby wants to study and learn about the world around them

- baby wants to hear what's going on

- new moms have a difficult time getting a good latch blindly

- blankets and those hideous nursing bibs draw more attention, not less

- covers further push the idea of over-sexualized breasts

However, all these pale in comparison with the biggest reason not to cover up while breastfeeding: Because it hampers healthy breastfeeding. 

A baby wants to eat under a blanket as much as you want to eat by yourself in a sterile white room without being allowed to read, talk, look out the window, play on your phone, etc. You would hurry up and finish the meal, so you can get back to the funner parts of life. So yes, get a baby hungry enough, and he might sit still under a blanket long enough to fill his tummy, which in a baby over 3 months takes about 3 to 5 minutes. But they will not want to linger at the breast, suckling on lazily while taking in the world around them. THAT kind of nursing is prerequisite for most moms to make lactational amenorrhea (LA) work for them. If you only ever, or mostly, cover up while nursing, your baby will spend a small fraction of the time on the breast that it would if they were uncovered. Not to mention all the bonding and close contact you and baby miss out on when separated by a "veil". 

God could have made milk come out of our pinkies if He had so chosen. He could have made it so babies eat table foods from birth. But no, in His wisdom He designed our bodies to nurture our babies in our bosoms, where they can smell us, see our faces at the ideal distance that their little eyes are attuned to at birth, and hear our heart beat that is so familiar to them from the womb. We moms, while gazing down at our baby's sweet face that God designed to be most appealing to us in its features, are so much more likely to sit and linger, put our feet up for a much-deserved rest, and admire God's perfect handiwork, rather than just getting the job of feeding baby done in a matter of minutes, and propping him up in some bouncy gadget while we tackle the never-ending housework.

Breastfeeding is God's design to allow a lady's body to recover from one pregnancy before embarking on the next. Breastfeeding hormones, like all hormones, are fickle and easy to disrupt. Just as the baby needs to be skin to skin with mom, suckling all night by her side, to make LA work, so extended breastfeeding throughout everyday activities is crucial. It's simply not possible under a blanket - no baby wants to do that.

Other suggestions, such as nursing without a cover, but off in another room, or staying home from all outside activities while baby is breastfed, are too ridiculous for me to address in detail. Obviously, no mom of many can leave the main part of the house and retreat to her bedroom, leaving the other kids unsupervised, for hours each day. And no husband wants to take on the outside responsibilities of his wife for two to three decades of their married life.

Women who pontificate about breastfeeding under a cover likely only have their token child or two, or they use birth control. If they don't, they will have children spaced very closely. Sure, there are a few women who will never have a cycle even if they just nurse their baby once every 24 hours, but that is the exception. Most moms, unless they breastfeed extensively each day, will have their cycles return too soon to be healthy or sustainable. 

There are many reasons why we should allow God's design to space our children. One important reason is that it allows us moms to "reset" our bodies between pregnancies, lose the baby weight instead of packing on more and more over time. Also, when our hormones are not out of whack, we women tend to be better wives and mothers, which in turn sets the atmosphere for the home. Cover up at what expense? So you can be a short, snippy, angry wife and mother, run ragged by having a baby every year? There is nothing like sitting down with baby for a half an hour, nursing and cooing, to lift mom's mood through endorphins and calm her frayed nerves. She might even sneak in a short nap! Under a cover? No baby will go for that for more than mere minutes.

But what about men's lusts?

A scantily clad  woman will be viewed as a sex object, and lusted after by unrighteous men. A lady breastfeeding is viewed as a mother, and as such, occasions little to nothing in the way of temptation. 

Only a hypocrite would expect women to only breastfeed while covered, even as they watch TV every day where women are flashy, immodest, and show their breasts for purely sexual appeal all day long. Cover up in front of your teenage son, who is sitting next to you on the sofa watching some harlot on TV? Yeah, that's really important - not!

Just because a lady does not use a blanket to cover up while breastfeeding, does not mean she has to be completely exposed. A shirt can easily be pulled down if need be, and baby's body is covering most of mom's midsection.

If a man is making a point to gawk and catch a glimpse of skin, if he is drawn into temptation and lust from seeing a non-descript sliver of skin that may as well be part of the upper arm as part of the breast, then there are far greater problems at work. A man who is satisfied with his own wife, having his appetites met by her in righteous marital intimacy, will not struggle with lust from seeing a breastfeeding woman, or catching a glimpse of her breast. Ladies, keep your husbands fed, and they won't go through life so starved that breastfeeding mothers suddenly start looking appealing.

Proverbs 27:7  The full soul loatheth an honeycomb; but to the hungry soul every bitter thing is sweet.

Furthermore, as stated above, we cannot expect ladies to cover up to accommodate all of men's personal whims, unless we want to mandate burqas. The Bible has enough commandments in it, we don't also need to add our own to it. 

In conclusion

If you want to cover up, more power to you. But don't impose your opinions on others, as there is no command in the Bible that tells ladies to cover up to feed their babies.

Per law, mothers can breastfeed in any public or private space that the mother is legally allowed to be in, in every state in the U.S. Don't let anyone tell you differently! 

 1871 in church

 1891

 1898

1900s

 1920s

1930s

1943

 

1946

 

 

For more beautiful breastfeeding pictures, please click here. It's worth a click, trust me!

Think these photos are anecdotal, the exception? Please share with me all the old pictures of women breastfeeding while covered, from back in the day when birth control was not used and we had normal views of breastfeeding mothers. Because they don't exist.