Since I found myself "with child" in December of 2008 with my first little one I have been getting bombarded with recommendations from all sides. Books, television, other moms, my mom, doctors, WIC ladies, lactation consultants, the list goes on and on... The research says that babies should be breastfed for best immunity health--for a year would be good, but 6 months would be GREAT, and if you can't do that, the first week is something to try for. Then there is the issue of formula--so many kinds, so many prices. How long do we do formula (or breast milk), and how do we introduce those other foods? I have heard that introducing cereal before 4 months causes obesity in childhood and adulthood later (actually I've heard this for 3 months, 4 months, 6 months, etc.). I had a pediatrician tell me that if a child is old enough to need cereal, it should not be put in a bottle. Some people skip cereal altogether as well as "baby food" and start with table food (which, ironically enough, I've never really heard anyone "frown" at this).
A person with no children would probably never bother with asking themselves these questions, but I have two children now, and I think more and more about this because my sons are so different. For instance, my oldest son was exclusively breastfed for 6 months, and we slowly introduced vegetables and then fruit week by week, one at the time, he was weaned from the breast at 12 months, and was also off the bottle, and pacifier at that time.
My young son was exclusively breastfed for 2 months, on formula for the rest, started solid food at 6 months (in no real order), and is now on table food at 11 months.
Both of my sons are equally healthy--meeting all the important milestones (also highly recommended from all sides)--so what gives? Is one of my sons going to be smarter, healthier, happier, than the other?
These questions are age-old. In fact, as I noticed today, the issue of babes and food is found in the Bible--and the issue was just as important.
Paul actually discussed this in 1 Corinthians (3:1-3): "And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able ; for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men?"
As a mother, I can totally get this analogy, and Paul is pretty brilliant for picking a comparison that would still be so important centuries later. After thinking about it, I realize that I have been missing this! When we go out as Christians and witness to others about God, we can't start with the things as deep as Sabbath or prophecy. We can't start out with smoking and diet. When we go out and witness to others about God we are to do just that.
Peter puts it similarly: "Therefore, laying aside all malice, all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and all evil speaking, as newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby, if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is gracious." Something a lot of people may not know is that infants before the age of 12 months don't need solid food at all. They receive all the essentials from that "pure milk" (breast milk and/or formula).
Following along with Peter and Paul's analogies, what is the "pure milk of the word"? In my opinion, this pure milk is the pure love of Jesus--his ministry and sacrifice. So why is it SO hard to start with this? It seems like we like the "ahh factor". We like to throw out big terms and big issues, and start a dis[argument]cussion. We like to push people, just like it seems we like to push babies to eat too soon/walk too soon/potty train too soon/grow up too soon. Peter and Paul saw this happening centuries ago, and I just figured it out!
[my apologies for the length...there will be a part 2]
No comments:
Post a Comment