The Battle of Peer Dependency: Chapter Six- Part Two

Hello, buddies!

I had my appointment with my OB a few days ago.  While stating frequently that she was open to whatever decision I made about attempting another pregnancy, she was also very clear that she was very concerned that I would have another severe pre-eclampsia event leading to an early delivery.  She had had two previous patients with a similar case history as I had.  One patient had a later successful pregnancy; the other's next pregnancy ended in severe pre-eclampsia leading to delivery at 24 weeks instead of 30 weeks.

That was before explaining all of the additional issues that could come up from being 40 when pregnant to me and a baby.

Hearing all of this stung a bit - I don't think anyone likes hearing that they are an obstetric train wreck -  but my main thought was that I didn't want to bet everything our family has gained over the last four years against the off-chance of having a healthy pregnancy. 

I'm sad.  I'm angry at times.  I'm relieved as well; there were a lot of mild annoyances with pregnancy that I was not looking forward to at all.  

Right now, I would like to have another child in our family - I just don't think the kid will join us through biological means.   I'm going to take at least through the New Year off from planning how to expand our family to let myself think and feel whatever comes up about not having another biological child.

At the same time, I realized at my OB's office that I was much less afraid of having another medically complicated child in our family than I was the severe guilt I would have at causing a child to be medically complicated by choosing to get pregnant knowing that my odds of a healthy, term pregnancy are poor. 

Spawn's infancy and toddlerhood were so very hard in some ways - but I know a whole lot more about how to manage medical and developmental complications.   Like...I know now that I would have gotten a better response on my worries about his speech development from his neurodevelopmental pediatrician than I did through Early On.  Since his at-home special education treatment though our local ISD was a complete shit-show, I'd follow my gut instinct and keep him in Early On with therapists I liked and coordinate care through medical rehabilitation until he was old enough to transition to school-based therapy.

I suspect my husband and I will end up either pursuing adoption of a medically complicated infant (or a preemie of some kind) or doing foster care and/or doing foster-to-adopt when Spawn's a bit older.

Random subject change: let's talk about papal infallibility for a second. 

I'm Catholic and the Catholic Church as always been discussing the limits and rights of the Pope.  Off and on since at least the 1500's theologians have been proposing different ideas about if and when the believers of the Catholic Church can be certain that something taught by the Pope is correct.  Some popes have been very agreeable about theological limitations on their teaching authority; others have viewed any limitations on their power - temporal or spiritual - as a personal insult.   

Most fascinatingly, there's an apocryphal story in the Church that the definition of papal authority was set when a pope in the 1800's ended the ongoing debate by calmly declaring that the pope was, in fact, infallible.   This story is completely untrue - but it does fit the level of mild confusion and love of tradition that the Catholic Church is known for.   

In 1870 during the First Vatican Council, the definition of papal infallibility was set as occurring when the Pope speaks with all of the following conditions attached.  The Pope must be teaching ex cathedra which means as the leader of the Catholic Church.  He must be teaching on a point of faith or morals.  This point must be meant to be held by the entirety of the Church.

How often does the Pope issue a papally infallible teaching?  Very rarely.  There are two agreed upon statements about the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary that are viewed to be infallible that have happened in the early 1800's and 1950's.   There are a few others - like 10 others - that are agreed to probably be infallible that cover information about the nature of God and Jesus that were made between 400 AD - 1800AD.

Long story short: rarely a Pope makes a teaching on faith and morals that Catholics believe to be a true revelation from God based in tradition that we should accept.

Why am I bringing this up right now?   Well, in the next quote from Marina Sears' opus "The Battle of Peer Dependency", God gets really irritated with Marina for not raising her kids as if she's more infallible than the Pope:

One day, the battle between may son and me had become very grievous. After he left the house, I am ashamed to say, I stomped my foot and said to the Lord, " I only want him to love You with all his heart, soul, and might. Why doesn't he love You all his heart, soul, and might?

In my spirit the Lord answered me by saying, " Marina, why don't you love me with all your heart, soul, and might?"

" Me, Lord? I do love you with all my heart. You know how I have sacrificed so that I can rear these children. I have not sought a life of my own. I did it because I thought that was what you wanted me to do."

Then He said, "Remember when it was just the children, you, and Me. We would talk and spend time discussing the future for the children. You remembered that it was I who created them and knew the plans I had for them. You would ask me what curriculum to use or what Bible verses to memorize. When you became friends with all the other homeschooling families you began to ask them what they were using. You were caught up in the academic flurry of higher education rather than considering my higher plans. Marina, your children don't love me with all of their heart, soul, and might, because you don't!"

It was at that moment I realized what the Lord was saying was true. I have left the Lord for the esteem of others. It was more important for me to know that my friends thought I was a good homeschooling mom, rather than what the Lord thought of me. I myself had fallen into the trap of peer dependency. (pgs. 79-80)

Yup. God expects Marina to parent as if she's more infallible than the Pope.

When the pope speaks infallibly, he's making a statement that has been crafted in conjunction with information from bishops stationed around the world.  Generally,  the College of Cardinals has weighed in on the theological and practical ramification of the statement.  The work of theologians outside of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church is crucial to the formation of the statement.   

A infallible papal statement is a group effort with lots of moments of disagreement, discussion and reconciliation of ideas.   

Marina Sears, on the other hand, has ruptured her relationship with God by taking advice from experienced homeschooling parents.  

Does that even make sense from a Biblical perspective?  No, not at all!  Throughout the Bible, people are interacting with other people and taking really good advice from them.  Think of Ruth getting advice from Naomi about how to approach Boaz or Esther and Mordecai working to save the Jewish people or Elizabeth and Mary caring for baby John together.

Marina Sears' revelation that God wants her to only discuss homeschooling with Him is oddly aligned with her personal wishes, wants and desires - in spite of her much belated declaration that she had succumbed to peer pressure.

Most importantly of all is Mrs. Sears bald admission of her basic motive.   Marina Sears chose a highly restrictive way of raising her children that reduced her personal opportunities.   She made a completely valid choice - but she cannot expect that her children in return will remain dependent on her forever.  

After all. "I want my son to love You with all his heart, all his soul and all his body" has the unspoken clause of "which he will show by doing what I tell him to do for the rest of his life."

That's a problem.

Prayers for the Maxwell Family

 The Maxwell Family - especially John and Chelsy - could use some thoughts and prayers right now. 

 Chelsy gave birth at 30 weeks to their first daughter Madeline after some kind of pregnancy complication.  

Madeline is a good, healthy weight but she's having some difficulty with her lungs right now.  As of yesterday, she's on a ventilator and needed pneumothorax tubes placed to remove free air outside of her lungs. 

That is, ironically, the exact same issue I had after I was born way back in the day.  Back when I was born, the ventilators that were used were often overpowered for preemie lung tissue and 'popping' holes in lungs was a common occurrence.   When Spawn was born, I was a very minor celebrity in the NICU as a former micro-preemie grown into a real adult.   The younger nurses (say under age 40) were horrified that the older ventilators were that damaging.  The older nurses assured me that pneumothorax was rare nowadays - but did happen occasionally to preemies in spite of their best efforts.

I hope for her family that her recovery is as simple as mine was; I needed two pneumothorax tubes placed to let the holes in my lungs heal - and then I turned into a feeding, growing machine.  

I'm having a mess of feelings right now. 

Sadness for the family because I know how unsettling NICUs are at first.   Sadness because my son is the best thing I've ever done in my life - and having a medically complicated child was the hardest thing I've ever been through - full stop.   Sadness because I don't want anyone to go through that ever again - and as much as I know that Madeline is going to be fine - I'll feel sad and nervous until she's breathing room air

Anger at the Maxwellian attempts to "rah-rah" pro-life crap in the middle of an update. (Jesus Fucking Christ - Madeline is at 30 goddamn gestational weeks.  Neonatologists agree that it is unethical to not try and resuscitate a baby whose only health issue is prematurity after 25 weeks gestation - and most will try at 24 weeks if the parents want to try.  No one was going to not intervene on a healthy baby girl born at 30 weeks.) 

Sadness because I saw far too many families who had a greatly wanted child who died in the NICU due to prematurity or a home birth gone terribly wrong.   

Relief that Chelsy didn't join the millions of women who died in pregnancy and that Madeline is likely going to be fine.

Anxiety because I'm seeing my OB this week to talk about my specific chances of having a baby born at the same gestation or earlier in a future pregnancy.  My husband and I would like one more baby - but the thought of a micro-preemie birth again makes me terrified.   I'm not so much scared about the risks for me - but I don't want to put a baby though that.   

I've not had guilt about Spawn's early birth; the complication was so rare and took such a strangely rapid course that no one could have prevented it.  The most common response to doctors and nurses to hearing my story of "I went from normotensive to severe pre-e with class I HELLP in ten days and the fact I was in multiple organ failure was only discovered because I was having nondescript abdominal pain" was "Oh, thank God you got to the hospital in time" said by a person wide-eyed with horror.  Medical professionals had seen much worse cases where the mom and/or baby died prior to getting a HELLP diagnosis - so I'm glad I called my OB when I felt sick.

I worry, though, that I'd be unable to forgive myself if I had a baby born that early or earlier again because I know I'm at higher risk for any of the complications of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy on future pregnancies.

 I have a whole list of questions about probabilities of pre-e and premature birth and what, if anything, the doctors could have done if we discovered my blood pressure was climbing in the week before Spawn was born.   Maybe we'll decide to expand our family by adoption from foster care.  Maybe we'll decide we are ok trying another pregnancy.  

I really don't know - and that's ok, too.  

That's why I've been posting less than usual recently.   When I have a lot of feelings, spending time pondering the quirks of CP/QF theology is not great for my mental state.   Instead, I exercise, hang out with people and spend time outside.  Soon enough, I'll be more settled - and the vagaries of CP/QF theology will keep until then. 

I am very glad that Chelsy and Madeline survived birth.  Pregnancy and childbirth are great when things go well - but so many people have forgotten just how dangerous both can be when things go wrong.  I'll be praying for them all - including the rest of the Maxwell clan.  They might drive me nuts on a theological level - but this is a hard time for them too.

The Battle of Peer Dependency: Chapter Six - Part One

Hello!

Chapter Six of Marina Sears' parenting book "The Battle of Peer Dependency" teaches her readers far more about how her brain works and what she expects out of life than I expected.  We've seen in other portions of the book how she's very rigid about her personal beliefs and expects her children to join her in being a shining example of God's providence for widows and orphans.   She also frequently denigrates the normal behavior of her two oldest sons by twisting the reactions of her youngest sons to justify keeping her children sheltered and excluded from the rest of the world.  

The first quote begins to explain the paradox that defines Marina's life:

Shortly after marrying Jeff, we joined a bible-believing church where I began to study Scripture, and it soon became my desire to be a woman of faith. I admired the godly heroes of Scriptures, my pastor's wife, Patricia Gentry , and wonderful Christians, like Corrie Ten Boom who was at the top of the list. Since I was in a " classroom of suffering" I had hoped it would be a natural byproduct, but I was wrong.  Just being in a painful situation didn't guarantee that I would glean the wisdom and character that God wanted me to acquire. As I searched Scripture for the formula to success, I found that I, like most people, am looking for something like 1 + 1 =2 . This type of formula was based more on what I could do to help, how I could manipulate, or control the situation, rather than by faith, trust in God. As they continued to search, I discovered there is a formula found in Scripture, but many, wishing for instant results, may be discouraged in the journey. (pg. 79)

Marina Sears is stuck between two mutually exclusive premises.

Premise One: There is no single, formulaic method to achieve success in life.

Premise Two: There is a single, formulaic method to achieve success in life!

All throughout the book, Marina Sears' writing is often scattered and hard to make sense of.  In re-reading this chapter, I realized that one of the reasons for her difficult writing style is that Mrs. Sears is often combining examples of Premise One in the middle of trying to prove Premise Two.   In this sample paragraph, Mrs. Sears explains that suffering alone doesn't automatically give people character or wisdom.  I think that's a fair statement; suffering can lead to character and wisdom or it can lead to brokenness and muddled thinking.  That makes the statement about suffering =/= wisdom and character an example of Premise One: there is no singular formula in life.  

So...the paragraph is chugging along fine when Sears declares that formulas are about controlling and manipulating the situation rather than trusting God.   Surprisingly to her, I would also agree with that statement.  Mrs. Sears throughout the book shows no faith in anyone.   She doesn't trust her sons to be able to handle going to play volleyball because it doesn't serve the family purpose.  She doesn't trust any other adults to be involved in the training or education of her sons.   Most jarringly, she often claims that she trusts God, but she spends so much time trying to manipulate her sons to do whatever she wants that I really doubt she trust God's Leading in her sons' lives at all.

While that's a jarring confession combined with Mrs. Sears' lack of self-awareness, the paragraph has held together with the overarching theme that "there is no one formula for success in life".  

Then the final sentence says "Ha, ha! There actually IS a formula - but you posers are too weak to carry it out!"  

Good Lord, woman!  This entire book is chalked full of Mrs. Sears trying to manipulate her growing sons to stay dependent on her to make decisions - and generally failing miserably.   By some ironic fluke, Chris and Davey are remarkably impervious to Mrs. Sears' attempts to guilt-trip them into living at home forever.  

Here's another great example of an inchoate paragraph caused by trying to force a paradox to work: 

Faith does not believe that if I do certain things God is obligated to bless me and change my child. Faith understands that God, the Creator of my child, has given me a gift. The gift is the child whom He has entrusted to my care, to nurture, love, and train. These are my responsibilities as a parent. What is not my responsibility is whether or not my child will love the Lord his God with all of heart, soul, and might. Understanding and then making application in one's life of this principle is very important in rearing children. For who can change the heart of another individual? Can we, as parents, do things to influence and change another's heart? The answer to that is yes.  Realizing that as we influence our children, God is in control and he does the changing. (pg. 79)

Most of this paragraph follows very basic Christian dogma.   Most Christian groups believe that God is ultimately in control of changing someone's heart and that a person's willingness to have God change their heart helps the process along.   Different denominations and people disagree over how much to emphasize a person's willingness to change compared to God's Grace - but the two ideas do co-exist.

Marina Sears also sticks to a fairly common and uncontroversial application of parenting.  God gives parents the responsibility to raise their children to be good people - but the faith journey of their child is ultimately between God and the child.  Honestly, that makes basic sense from any point of view because faith is a internal attribute of a relationship between God and a person.  I cannot force any two people on Earth to trust each other - and similarly - a person's willingness to trust God is based on the state of their relationship with God which is affected by a myriad of factors that are out of anyone's control.  

In this vein, Mrs. Sears holds to Premise One - "there is no one formula for success" - until the last four sentences of the quote.     Near the end, Mrs. Sears asks a rhetorical question about the ability of one person to change another person's heart.   The standard response to that question is "No, the only person who can change their heart is the person themselves (or God)."   

Something in that question triggers a major shift in Mrs. Sears' thinking.  After having stuck with Premise One for most of a paragraph, she modifies the question to deal with the specific case of parents and children before diving into Premise Two - "there is a formula for success that I know".  

The most bizarre thing for me as a spouse, parent and professional is the fact that Mrs. Sears last paragraph completely ignores any sign of agency in the child regardless of age. In Mrs. Sears' world, a parent controls a child - that's what "influences" is short-hand for - and in return, God makes the kid's heart into the form that the parent wants.   

That's a good recipe for a piece of computer controlled equipment - the user puts in the desired specs and the equipment performs - but it's palpably crazy as a theological concept and devastating as a parenting technique.