[Written sometime in 1999 or before] Seeing as how there was a HUGE brouhaha on an email loop not too long ago (of which a dear friend is a member) on this subject, I have decided to write a statement concerning this in the hopes of bringing about LESS division, rather than more. Doubtless both sides will consider this something of a compromise either way, but I feel compelled to at least make an attempt at peacemaking.

The question was raised recently on a message board I participate in about Carol Balizet's beliefs about the cause of birth complications. I replied that yes, it's a commonly-held misconception that she believes they are the result of personal sin ... and that this is also a gross generalization which has been pasted across denominational lines for years. Many of the disagreements over this book have to do with basic denominational/interpretational issues. There is a web article posted supposedly "refuting" the "Zion" viewpoint, written by a Christian woman who no doubt means well, but which seriously borders on slander. A friend and I are presently working on a rebuttal to this article. I do not personally agree with every detail of Carol's teachings, and neither does my friend (she nearly lost her last child, after a wonderful unassisted home birth, to a severe congenital heart defect which would not have been detected before it was, even if she had standard prenatal care); but we are concerned that Christians are dismissing this viewpoint as cultish when the issues are not doctrinal, in the sense of questioning the deity of Christ (which to me is the real test of a cult), but as I already said, interpretational.

Perhaps it would suffice to say that many fine Christians believe that "Born In Zion" is heresy in the worst sense ... many equally fine Christians believe that it is Scriptural, and therefore truth ... and many are somewhere in the middle! That description could apply to quite a few issues within the church, could it not?

I have to say that after much prayer and study (and I must add, my own formal training was from a most un-Charismatic denomination), I can see much validity in Carol's teachings. I think they bear careful thought, at least, given the direction our governmental and medical systems seem to be heading. I believe, if nothing else, that the time will come when believers will not be allowed to avail themselves of conventional medicine or technology to solve their health problems, and we should be prepared to rethink both our source of healing and the strength of our faith.

Furthermore, I believe that we, as the Body of Christ, have the responsibility to love the brethren no matter what viewpoint they hold on matters less than the Deity of Christ, the Virgin birth, the Blood Atonement, and the Resurrection of Christ. I believe this becomes even a more pressing need with the closing of the Age (whenever that may be). We must learn to recognize the Remnant not by the clothing they wear or what flavor of Christian music they prefer--not even by their stance on the medical system or on the gifts of the Spirit--but by their commitment to the Creator God and their thirst for a personal, living relationship with Him and His Only Son, Jesus (Yeshua).

All of this to explain WHY I chose to include not only the Home In Zion site, home page of Carol Balizet's ministry, but also Unassisted Childbirth, created and maintained by Scott and Charity Gregson, with whom I have sharply disagreed on certain--ah, interpretational--points a time or two. Charity has chosen to include a copy of the article "Zion Birth Heresy," as well as other information casting Home In Zion ministries in a negative light; on my site I will include a rebuttal of the "Heresy" article, in the hopes that both sides will be accurately represented, and seekers may draw their own conclusions. My prayer is that we may search the Scriptures and find where we as individual believers are called to walk in these matters, and not be swayed by other's opinions or our own preconceived notions of how the world should work.