31. March 2008 by Seth.

Recent events in the Hoosier state have given the Underground opportunities to defend those who cannot defend themselves, to stand up for the approximately 3,500 babies who die each day to the knife of inconvenience.

When former Pres. Bill Clinton was in town, the Underground lined the sidewalks of the Grand Wayne Center.  When Sen. Hillary Clinton arrived to push her campaign for the presidency, we were there again—holding signs, sharing truth with those who’d engage us.

Interestingly, though, one trend soon became the norm.  Our signs bore a simple message: Abortion Kills Children.  However, this was, curiously, the only message people did not draw from our signs.

Time and time again, the pro-abortion crowd judged us as war-aficionados and Bush-lovers.  They challenged our right to be present.  They accused us of forcing morality upon them.

They did everything they could think of—except challenge the simple message we wanted to share.

Indeed, those who actually chose to challenge our assertion that each abortion ends the life of a child were very few in number.  Instead, they ignored the letters on our signs and reworded our message to fit their own desired ends.

“Christians don’t judge,” one woman shouted to me.  I engaged her assertion out of respect.  However, in making this claim, not only was she judging me—and thereby contradicting herself because she told me she was a Christian—but she was also avoiding the simple, clear content of “Abortion Kills Children.”  Who were we judging with this message?  Did our signs read “Women Who Abort Are Murderers?”  No. 

I didn’t even have “Klopfer is a Murderer” on my sign—though it would have been tempting, and true.

This woman, like the others in the crowds we’ve met, clearly did not wish to engage the three simple words of our message.

“Bush murders, too!” others exclaimed.  Oddly, though, not a single one of our signs included the word “Bush.”

“More have died in the war than to abortion!” was also heard from the crowd.  Not only is this clearly false—we just recently were told in the media that we’ve reached 4,000 American deaths in the Iraqi war, which is barely more than the number of children killed each day in the abortion industry—but also, again, it has nothing to do with the simple message of “Abortion Kills Children.”

Others simply wrote us off with comments such as, “AKC stands for American Kennel Club.”

Still others spouted off baffling responses such as, “Well, at least they weren’t soldiers.”

Clearly, the effort to speak out against abortion has today been equated to a vote for Bush and an amen to the Iraqi war.

Nevermind the fact that in our midst was at least one woman who has lost relatives in the war.  Nevermind the fact that a polling of all of we prolife demonstrators would have yielded very different views upon the war.

Nevermind these details because, after all, what the crowd truly wanted to do, apparently, was to judge and force their morality upon us.

Ironic, isn’t it?

Posted in News, Social, Politics, Abortion | Print | 4 Comments »

24. March 2008 by Seth.

Some of you left some great comments concerning Sen. Obama’s methods of Biblical interpretation.  Let’s continue the evaluation.

Where is this reference in the Sermon on the Mount to which the Senator is referring?  Great question.  Answer: it’s anyone’s guess.  He did not make it clear, but simply invoked this lengthy passage by name.

Perhaps he was making a veiled reference to Matt. 5:38-48, the well-known section of turning the other cheek to one who has slapped you, of giving your coat when someone takes your shirt, etc.  Or, even more likely, perhaps he was appealing to the first portion of chapter 7—that of judging oneself before one’s brother.

However, for Sen. Obama to claim that these passages support homosexuality is an eisegetical travesty.  The teachings bundled in this section vary from that of Believers remaining fervent in their example as a “city on a hill” (5:13-16), of men and women being guilty of adultery even if they merely lust after another (5:27-28), of giving to the poor (6:1-4), etc.  To invoke this passage by name and declare it a great ally of homosexual conduct would be to ignore the teachings thereof entirely.  Anyone with a KJV, NIV, NASB—or, for that matter, even an NWT—can clearly see that these chapters teach principles of personal conduct, relationships, witness, and that they do not encourage sinful lifestyles.

There is no didactic (teaching) content in favor of homosexuality.  The reference found here to sexuality does nothing to broaden God’s command.  On the contrary, it makes morality in relation to sexuality much tighter.  Indeed, Jesus commands that mere lust is tantamount to fornication.

The Senator’s flippant attitude toward Romans must also be dealt with.  Not only is this passage not in the least obscure, we have no reason to assume that we can merely pick what we want from the Bible and dispose of the rest.  This smorgasbord attitude is that which has produced the neo-pagan, Buddhist-flavored, Christianity-sprinkled New-Agers which populate our country. 

To deny God’s Word, however, is to deny God.  One who chooses to discard commandments from the Father is choosing not to follow the Father.

Indeed, Jesus said, “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments” (John 14:15; NASB).  He did not give us access to pick and choose which of those commandments we like.  If we are followers of God, it will naturally follow that we obey Him—and His Word.

Biblical texts may vary in the extent to which they may be easily applied to our lives.  It is quite simple, for example, to see how the Sermon on the Mount ought to guide how we direct our lives.  And, Romans 1:26-27, the “obscure” passage cited by Sen. Obama, can quite readily be applied to our lives in that we are not to engage in the sin it describes.  However, even passages which may not seem to directly apply to us cannot be thrown away.

The Bible is composed of a variety of types of literature—from didactic passages to narratives, from poetry to parables and proverbs, etc.  We must consciously determine which type of literature we are reading as we engage a Biblical text.  Passages which are not didactic in nature will naturally be less quickly applicable to daily life.  However, we cannot declare these unimportant and discard them.

After all, how would our understanding of the long-awaited redemption be cheapened without the epic struggles of the Old Testament, the promise made to Abraham?  How would our understanding of the human condition be affected had we not the poetry of the Psalms which convey the glory of God and the joy of following Him, as well as the despair of the moments during which one feels far from Him?  How could we appreciate the fulfillment of prophecy in Christ had we not access to those prophecies?  How would we properly understand the salvation described in the epistles if we did not have an historical account of the life of Jesus?

However, above all we must note that it is not a text’s usefulness which gains it entry into the canon.  It was placed there by the fathers of old who followed careful criteria, such as, concerning the New Testament, that of a text’s apostolic authority (its link to an apostle).

We cannot uphold only that which we find to be ”central” and discard the rest.  We must properly engage the texts by classifying them into their proper genre.

Yes, there are passages which are obscure, such as Paul’s quick reference to baptism of the dead (I Cor. 15:29).  Even these passages, though, must not be discarded.  Rather, these obscure texts must be interpreted by the more explicit portions of scripture.  We still need to grapple with and attempt to understand them—but we do so by understanding them within the context of the whole Bible, not by merely kicking them out of the canon.

Sen. Obama may need to enroll in Hermeneutics 101 if he wishes to paint himself a devoted Believer.

Posted in Biblical Interpretation, Politics | Print | 2 Comments »

10. March 2008 by Seth.

Jargon, grand visions, empty promises, even a little mud-slinging: these have become the norms of a presidential election year.

But, it is not every candidate who shares with us an insight into his own Biblical hermeneutic—the way in which he interprets God’s Word.  This, Senator Barack Obama did in a recent speech.

His comments: I believe in civil unions that allow a same-sex couple to visit each other in a hospital or transfer property to each other. I don’t think it should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state. If people find that controversial, then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans. That’s my view. But we can have a respectful disagreement on that.

Sen. Obama’s political views are not shocking.  But, his appeal to Biblical texts in order to support these ideas is interesting indeed.

Let’s see what we might learn from Sen. Obama’s hermeneutic:

1.  The Sermon on the Mount is more “central” than other New Testament passages.  Assuming that by “central” he means important, relevant—for he certainly cannot be referring to physical location—according to the Senator, Biblical texts should be arranged on a hierarchy of usefulness.  We need not discuss or consider those texts near the bottom, for it is only the “central” passages which matter.

2.  Obscurity = Paul + Clear description of sin.  The passage to which Sen. Obama refers in Romans (1: 18-32, specifically verses 26-27) is by no means buried within the text.  Indeed, Paul has barely completed his preface and declared his longing to visit Rome when he launches into an account of God’s wrath against mankind because of his sin, including the lust of men toward other men.  This, the Senator argues, is obscure.

3. Disagreement dismisses the argument.  Senator Obama uses phrases like “That’s my view” and “for my faith,” concluding with “we can have a respectful disagreement on that,” almost as if to invoke the cliché “We agree to disagree.”  In doing so, he equates the homosexual debate with that of the Calvinist vs. the Arminian or the discussion among the schools of eschatological thought (that of the “end times”)—debates in which more than one side seems to hold at least some merit. 

Evaluation?

Is the passage in Romans “obscure?” 

Is the debate of homosexuality one in which we simply must “agree to disagree?” 

What of the Senator’s classification of Biblical texts?  Surely we need some framework for understanding the variety of texts we find in the Bible.  Is the above suggested method—that of dividing the “central” from the unimportant, along with a neglect of the latter—the best way for us to do so?  If not, what methods might we employ? 

I’ll reserve my thoughts for Part 2.  First, I’d like to hear your ideas.

Posted in Biblical Interpretation, Politics | Print | 5 Comments »

19. February 2008 by Seth.

The “cultural competency” bill has been amended!

Discussions among Sen. Teresa Lubbers, Sen. Greg Walker (a name several of you may recognize), AFA of Indiana Executive Director Micah Clark, and others have produced some favorable amendments to the bill detailed in our previous post.

 1. The amendment no longer reads “any licensed teacher.”  Rather, it pertains only to public schools.  Furthermore, references to “diversity training” have been removed.

2. A very positive amendment: language was added which would require public high schools to teach about fetal development as part of their health classes.

As you might guess, Planned Parenthood and other abortion advocates are not thrilled by the potential ramifications of Amendment #2.  The next step for the bill is to pass through the conference committee, where it will either continue onward or die due to disagreement by the committee over the amendments.

According to the official Indiana Legislative website, Amendment #2 was accepted by the committee.

The Senate could vote on the bill as early as today.

It appears, therefore, that this bill could possibly have a silver lining for advocates of the sanctity of human life. 

There are still many questions surrounding HB 1107.  For example, what does it mean to be “culturally competent?”   There certainly are combating views on this point, and therefore it remains to be seen what impact this might have on Hoosier public school systems.  However, it appears from the bill’s current language that each school corporation would be able to define “cultural competency” for themselves, which seems appropriate.  Nevertheless, it would not be surprising if the Indiana Department of Education would write their own interpretation of the bill (assuming it passes the Senate vote and Governor Daniels would sign it) to become the standard for schools to follow. 

This remains a story to watch carefully.

The bill in its current language can be found below:

HB 1107: Cultural competency. Requires the department of education to develop standards for cultural competency teacher training. Requires school corporations to develop policies concerning cultural competency training for school staff as a part of school improvement plans. Requires each school corporation to include instruction regarding human fetal development in the school corporation’s high school health education curriculum.

Posted in Social, Politics, Abortion | Print | No Comments »

18. February 2008 by Seth.

Excitement from the potential impact of Indiana Senate bill 146 had barely begun to settle when a new bill started to fan the flames of debate across the Hoosier State.

IN House bill 1107, authored by Rep. Greg Porter and sponsored in the Senate by Sen. Teresa Lubbers would require “public and private accredited Christian schools and all licensed teachers in any setting including non-accredited private and home school settings to take pro-homosexual diversity training each year and to ‘measure’ their students’ ‘cultural competency’ on issues of diversity, culture and ideologies.” (American Family Association of Indiana: afain.net)

The range of debate prompted by such a piece of legislation is sweeping.

For example, who is to determine the view of homosexuality to be spoon-fed into the minds of Hoosier youth?

Also, how might this actually affect the homeschool community?  While the bill calls for even non-accredited private schools to follow the proposed “diversity training,” it appears this would only apply to licensed teachers.  Teacher certification is not required to educate ones children at home in Indiana.

Further, what is “cultural competency?”  Is it knowledge of contemporary American culture and its various fragmentations with an understanding (not acceptance) of social groups?  Or, is it false tolerance, by which one is forced to actually suppress ones own culture/ideologies and adopt those of another which are anathema to ones moral compass? 

Such an act would be tantamount to believers of orthodox Christianity holding hands with Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons to sing “Kum Ba Ya.”  While we may all be pleading to some deity to “come by here,” only one is directing this call to the Triune God of Scripture, and therefore to sing such a song together would be to ignore the simple fact that each group strongly opposes the fundamental views of the other.

We can—and will—cooexist.  But, we must not suppress the Truth.

The American Family Association (AFA) of Indiana last week dispersed an alert following this bill’s passage through the House, prompting Hoosiers to begin contacting their senators.  The same day, Sen. Lubbers, sponsor of the bill, called AFA to discuss possible amendments.  According to Micah Clark, AFA of Indiana Executive Director, Sen. Lubbers is interested in addressing concerns from pro-family groups and even amending the bill to reflect this.

Could this be a sign of the Indiana Senate itself growing in “cultural competency” of Hoosiers strongly opposed to forced false tolerance?  Time will tell.

Updates are expected this week on HB 1107.  Stay tuned.

Sites to watch for news (along with the Underground blog, of course):

http://www.in.gov/legislative/

http://www.afain.net/

Posted in Social, Politics | Print | No Comments »

13. February 2008 by Seth.

Below you will find Dr. Cly’s testimony in full regarding the life threatening complications resulting from abortions performed in Fort Wayne.  The Senate passed the proposed legislation (SB 146).  It is currently awaiting a hearing in the House. 

Dr. Cly filed a medical licensing complaint with the Indiana Attorney General’s office the same day he testified.

This bill would require physicians performing abortions both to have admitting privileges at a local hospital and to notify the patient of the hospital location where she can receive follow-up care by the physician.  In addition, this bill would assure that women be given information concerning when a fetus feels pain, as well as that they be informed in writing at least 18 hours before an abortion about the following: the availability of adoptions, the option to have certain adoption-related expenses borne by the adoptive parents, physical risks to the woman in having an abortion, and that “an embryo formed by the fertilization of a human ovum by a human sperm immediately begins to divide and grow as human physical life.”

 - Seth

The ultrasound performed in the ER showed pieces of the baby were left inside and had become necrotic. I immediately had to perform a Dilation and Curettage to “finish the abortion” in order to save the patient from sepsis (a life threatening total blood stream infection) and to attempt to save her uterus so that she could preserve her fertility, as she was only 20 years old and wanted children in the future. Unfortunately, due to the pain and infection, she required a hysterectomy to fix her symptoms. She can not have any more children as a result of these complications. All of which could have been prevented with proper emergency on call coverage and quality oversight. This bill would correct that problem by requiring admission privileges and notification of the hospital where the patient can receive follow up care.

The second patient from my practice also had a termination performed prior to notifying our office. This is usually what happens, as patients many times are embarrassed to tell us they are considering a termination. This patient was unable to locate the physician who performed the procedure, as he does not have nighttime on call coverage and leaves no forwarding number to be reached. He is only in Fort Wayne on Thursdays from 9AM to 5PM, then he returns to his home state of Illinois. Without anywhere else to turn, the patient went to the ER and I was called since she had delivered a baby with our group in the past. This patient had severe abdominal pain and heavy vaginal bleeding. Again, pieces of the baby were seen on ultrasound from an incomplete termination. This patient was much more fortunate and didn’t lose her uterus and will be able to have children again.

These two patients are from my experience in the last couple of months. Unfortunately, my OB/Gyn colleagues in Fort Wayne and other parts of Indiana have reported similar occurrences. The problem is that there is no quality assurance system or “checks and balances” for terminations in the state of Indiana. Hospital privileges and notification to the patient of the hospital where the physician has privileges would immediately correct this patient safety issue.

As I mentioned, I have been the Quality Assurance Committee Chairman for the past 3 years at Dupont Hospital. Every hospital already has a Quality Assurance Committee. The committee reviews every single complication, surgical infection, and procedural complication that occurs. This system is completely done by physicians and it allows us to ensure that physicians are not harming patients because of substandard medical care or negligence. It also allows us to track complications and if necessary take educational or disciplinary action to protect our patients from harm.

If I perform a Dilation and Curettage for a miscarriage and pieces of the baby are left inside the patient. Within days I would have more than 10 physicians from a Quality Committee asking me to explain myself, what happened and why I performed substandard surgery on that patient. They would also track my complications and make sure it didn’t happen again. None of these checks and balances occur without admission privileges.

Any physician with admission privileges, anywhere in Indiana, has to have 2 emergency backup physicians listed who will provide emergency and nighttime call coverage should that physician be unavailable or out of town. This includes all physicians, because we all have to have to have admitting privileges to care for patients who have emergencies. Except - for the physicians performing terminations, they currently don’t have to worry about the quality of their care or being held accountable if their patients suffer severe complications.

In summary, as physicians, we are making life and death decisions about patients. These patients trust us with their lives. It is our duty to protect them and care for them in the best way possible. The current termination laws allow a few substandard physicians to place a group of women in Indiana in serious danger because the lack of proper quality assurance oversight. This abuse of the physician patient relationship and negligence toward the patient can not be allowed to continue. This bill will immediately ensure that all Indiana patients receive high quality, physician reviewed, proper medical care for elective terminations. I ask that you use your legislative authority to protect this group of Indiana women by passing this bill to require hospital admission privileges and notify the patient of the hospital where she can go to receive the prompt and proper medical care.

Posted in Social, Politics, Abortion | Print | 4 Comments »