What would happen if….?

First of all, Dr. Klouda does not have a high powered defense team. She is the plaintiff. Secondly, Alex, are you kidding? You said, “By your expressed fears you almost imply that you believe that other professors were dismissed unjustly behind a cloak of theological change. I hope not. I hope that if they sued, they’d all lose because they were not unjustly treated.”

Surely you know that dozens of seminary professors, including seminary presidents, were forced to resign or likely be terminated. I can only assume you are too young to have known what took place in the early eighties.

Klouda was hired by a post-CR board with a post-CR president. She is not a pre-CR professor. If she wins this case it will not undue the CR but send a strong message for CR leaders to follow the law and contracts. If this is seen as a threat to the CR, does that mean that the CR is a lawless and godless (Romans 13) movement?

Brother Brian,

Thanks for venturing over into these waters, I know it can be intimidating.

First, your assertion that she was hired by post CR boards with post CR presidents is correct. However, that is not the argument being presented. This argument says nothing about a change in the theological setting of the entire SBC. This argument calls into question the integrity of the theological position Dr. Patteson holds. Notice the language; “if Defendant Patterson was genuine in his beliefs, he certainly differed in his interpretation from his predecessor and the Board of Trustees,. Let us go back to 1988. Conservatives gain control of SEBTS’ BoT. We have the President, Academic Dean and others leave in protest. Guess what? If this argument prevails, they have a basis for going to the courts and saying, the BoT differed in their interpretation from their predecessors.

Now, I am just a cuntry preacher, but I was taught to read. And according to that argument that is place before us, if it prevails, there would be precedence for someone to argue in that direction. Maybe BDW will venture over and can give us some better clarity. Of course, I have already asked my lawyer about this too. ;>)

Blessings,
Tim

tim,

do you know that spelled “country” “cuntry” after telling us that you were taught to read?

also, you have a lawyer? wow, i need to get me one. it seems like that’s the newest fad amongst christians…especially southern baptists.

david

Tim,

It appears that the Plaintiff is arguing for “consistency” and asking the courts to help determine if the “actions” of the Defendant (Patterson and separately SWBTS) is consistent to determine her employment condition which is governed by the law of the United States. The argument in section III seems to imply that there was an inconsistency on the part of the Defendant. It does not appear that the court is considering theology, but it may be concerned that if the Defendants are making employment decisions based upon a variety of convictions, that in and of itself those “actions” may cause harm to the Plaintiff.

The Defendant Patterson still maintains the opportunity to bring about a biblical solution if he chooses to follow Matthew 18. That in and of itself would begin to demonstrate consistency.

Blessings,
Chris

I realize this is off topic from your post Tim, but allow a little grace here.

1. She was offered another prestigious position at the same pay and benefits.

2. She resigned.

3. Case closed.

brother Chris mentions another valid point…let us not misunderstand the role of civil government…it is, along with the Church, ordained of God and it’s officials are also ministers. I’m not so quick to speak of “secular” courts as such. courts and governments are as ordained of God and serve His purposes every bit as much as does the Local or Catholic Church. We are to obey them as we would Christ Himself until they forbid us from doing something He commands, or commands us to do something He forbids.

Brother Chris,

I am in total agreement with your statement in comment #13.

Blessings,
Tim

Thanks Chris

I am in full agreement with your statement also.

Tim,

I keep seeing Romans 13 thrown around a lot by those supporting Klouda’s lawsuit. A few of points regarding that:

1. Governments have miserably failed to be righteous in their judgments as ministers of God. Some have argued, that we should accept the decision as from the Lord. If that were so, slavery, racism, abortion and other decisions that have been or still are affirmed by our government are decisions that we should accept from the Lord. Rubbish!

2. Some, though not all, of the proponents of this lawsuit who quote Romans 13 are fiercely anti death penalty. Yet, Romans 13:4-5 clearly argues for the death penalty and for the state to be an avenger to execute wrath with the sword. It does appear that they like to “cherry pick” Scriptures and use only what fits their cause.

3. Our government was formed with the specific intention to keep Congress from making laws to establish a state religion and to allow the free exercise of religion. i.e. To keep the state out of the affairs of religion. This lawsuit is clearly government intrusion into religion, which they have no Constitutional interest in. It is not a violation of Romans 13 for us to demand that government stay out of religious affairs as the Constitution concurs.

I do find it interesting that Klouda’s attorneys are in essence making an argument regarding one’s theology before the court, who again, according to our Constitution, have no interest in the matter.

Ron P.

Bart,

I am not sure that is what attorney’s of the case are arguing….being as you have said “Klouda is arguing that a theological conviction is not “truly held” if it has recently changed.” It appears the courts will try to judge if the “action of”, not the “conviction of” the Defendant is what caused the Plaintiff some injustice. Meaning,….did the “action” of the defendants cause harm. There is no doubt that there was a change of theological understanding from one point to the next. I think any court could clearly see the theological difference, but should, as consistent with previous judgments remain mute on that item.

That is the risk the seminary takes by not pursuing Matthew 18. The seminary is begging the court to make the decision. If the seminary remands this to the courts, they lose either way.

Blessings,
Chris

“If this argument prevails, is that not grounds for lawsuits for those moderate profs who left because the seminaries and other entities went conservative?”

Simply put, no. The statute of limitations for such an action has run out…and it ran out years ago for those fired/pushed out profs. Granted, folks like Molly Marshall could have sued and taken Southern and Brother Al to the cleaners but she didn’t due to her convictions. I don’t share those convictions and after one year of tussling with the insurance company of the family whose reckless driving left my femur snapped in half, my lawyer and I just today reached a VERY generous settlement agreement. Is it appropriate to say Praise The Lord when one “wins” a lawsuit?

I think it is a little apocalyptic to say that the Klouda case being decided in her favor would undo the conservative resurgence, or deal a death-blow to religious liberty.

Panic, anyone?

However, I do think that it shows the need for our agencies to abide by the BF&M. It would provide protection in cases like this.

The foundation of this suit is that Dr. P operated by his own whim or will, not the expressed intent of the SBC.

Brother Dave,

Let me give you a little insight as to the Garner Motion. If you read the arguments presented in the above link, you will notice that the BF&M is part of the argument. Do you wonders some time why those that were the inventors of the Garner Motion are so intent on making the BF&M a maximal document?

While I would agree that you may not see this as I, I would seriously caution that this is not a “sky is falling” argument.

Brother BDW,

One more thing. If you are telling me that Dr. Marshall does not believe in filing a lawsuit against an organization that is Christian, I must say I admire that part about her. We now have a woman that has openly stated she does not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture vs. a woman who says she does believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. Which one do you think believes more in the sufficiency of Scripture?

Blessings,
Tim

Steve,

I agree that this could open up a number of can of worms. The legal industry must be salivating at the prospect to find more ambulances to chase.

Ron P.

brother Tim,

if you are right about the BF&M not being a maximum standard then perhaps we should rethink how our seminaries and agencies discriminate for this very reason.

in my opinion…our agencies and seminaries should not have the privilege of accepting less than the BF&M or discriminate beyond it when it comes to hiring and firing issues. and this issue with sister Klouda is, in my opinion, a good reason why.

IF,

The bylaws of the convention would have to be drastically changed in order to accomplish your goal. IMHO, that would be a disastrous fiasco, crippling all entities from making ANY decision not voted on and added to the BFM by the convention. We would then ultimately have a true democracy (i.e. mob rule). Have you ever been in a church business meeting where every item and every penny is discussed ad infinitum? The SBC would effectively be shutdown. That would be the result of such an action. Countless decisions by entity agencies and BOTs are made that are not addressed by the BFM. As has been pointed out elsewhere, that would include Lifeway being prohibited from publishing any Bible Study material not addressed in the BFM.

Further, Dr. Mohler gave a great illustration last year about this. The BFM does not prohibit cross dressing. The Bible does. The BFM affirms that the Bible is our final authority and therefore, he would fire any professor who decided to become a cross dresser. But if we decided to make the BFM a maximal guide, we would have to be amending it endlessly to address issues as they arise. No thanks! That is why we have a Trustee System.

Blessings,

Ron P.

We can argue all we want about the validity of the lawsuit, but speaking to the original point of Tim’s post, his entire argument is invalid based on what Big Daddy said about the statute of limitations.
Three years in many states. So no professors who felt marginalized will even remotely have a case, since the CR was twenty years ago. Sorry Tim, BDW is right. Even liberals can be right sometimes :>)
Robin, I don’t know that anyone would say that Taylor University (a fine school) is on the same level of prestige for a professor as Southwestern. Of course, given the actions of her president, maybe Taylor is better.
I would put it this way: Seminary trustees uninimously hired a woman to teach Hebrew. Dr. Patterson fired her, because she is a woman. That is against the law. Case closed.

Thanks Ron P. I appreciate your comments, but would respectfully disagree. I believe that when a group of deacons decide to can their pastor, and they make it clear to him that he is no longer welcome in the church, and they give him a period of time to find another place to go, they call it a “forced resignation.” That is what happened to Dr. Klouda. And it doesn’t make it right.
And you are right–professors need to make more money, to compensate for the stress they must feel, knowing that if they have any views that are in disagreement with a new administration, they will be asked to find another job. Not fired, mind you, but kindly asked to go to work someplace else, in Jesus name.

Chris,

The brief in question argues that, although the court cannot determine whether a belief is true, it can determine whether it is truly held. One of several arguments advanced to try to demonstrate that the argument is not “truly held” is to argue that the previous president didn’t hold the view and that the seminary had, in the past, hired women to such positions.

In other words, if the belief changed, that’s an inconsistency. And inconsistencies, according to the theory, are evidence that a belief is not “truly held.”

In the real world, both people and institutions grow, wander from the truth, arrive at “greater light,” and the like when it comes to their theology. Religious liberty means, at least in part, the freedom to arrive at new religious convictions.

The reason for the standard (and its origin) is to keep people from “developing” a newfound passivism and claiming conscientious objector status—all of this happening to occur right about the time you get drafted.

So, I don’t differ with the need for courts to determine whether a religious belief is or is not truly held. I’m simply saying that the mere appearance of theological movement is no evidence at all that a conviction is not truly held.

Brother Bart,

I think you are closer to why this is not going to be judged by the courts based upon religious convictions. The Defendants desperately need that to happen. If this goes to a decision, the court will be forced to rule only on inconsistencies, and it certainly appears to be within the agency of the law to make such determinations.

I still believe the best remedy is to move to Christian reconciliation as Christ has commanded resulting in the following….

Matthew 18:18-19 “Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. (19) “Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven.”

It is much better to enter into agreement with the Father who is in heaven.

Blessings,
Chris

Regarding Molly Marshall, BDW certainly won’t give both sides of this story. Listen for yourself and see if these match up. This is the only time that I’ve heard of where Mohler ever has spoken publically about the takeover. He spoke this publically, hold him accountable for his words if its not true. Mohler may be no less biased than the post linked to by BDW, but listen and see both sides.

http://www.sovereigngracestore.com/ProductInfo.aspx?productid=A2085-03-51A

It’s entitled “Cost of Conviction” Parts 1 & 2 are free. I bet it would be a blessing to most everyone here.

Wade

I am following what Dr. Blaising has said on his affidavit. You claim that I lied. You also challenged Bart on this.

Why don’t you go to the source of the statement that Bart and I used and clearly state that you believe that Dr. Blaising lied? Stop picking on the small fish Wade. Have the guts to declare Dr. Blaising a liar since we are going on his affidavit. But when you do it, YOU better have proof.

BTW, since it has been shown that Klouda resigned, will you now recant your statement that she was terminated by Southwestern, since proof has been offered otherwise? Intentional or not, will you now correct what seems to be a misapplied allegation against Southwestern?

As someone pursuing a doctoral degree at a Baptist university and as someone who grew up in the world of Baptist Higher Education (my dad taught at SBTS, Bluefield College, Brewton-Parker College and now a tenured religion prof at Baylor), I must say that Ron P.’s comment to Jason K is absurd. You have no clue. Getting a job in Christian Higher Education is not always an easy task. And you won’t find many Junior Colleges or Public 4-Year Universities who are willing to hire a Professor of Biblical Studies! I never attended a Junior College but i suspect most don’t offer courses in Hebrew!

Further, her degrees are from Southwestern and The Criswell College! A Ph.D. from SWBTS might suit if you’re trying to stay in the Southern Baptist world or teach at a very conservative small Christian college or university somewhere – but public schools don’t make a habit of giving out tenure-track positions to folks with Ph.D.’s from seminaries!

My dad will tell you that is degree from SBTS has hurt more than it has helped. He’s always said that his biggest mistake was picking Southern over Chicago. Right or wrong, big schools don’t regard highly folks with doctorates from Southern Baptist institutions. But folks like my dad and obviously Klouda felt called to Christian Higher Education – more specifically Baptist Higher Education. They were willing to attend those schools and earn those degrees even if it made them a less marketable academic in the broader world of Higher Education.

I do agree with those who believe that professors at Christian universities should be paid more…much much more. Some high school teachers make more money than a large percentage of your tenured professors at the smaller Southern Baptist affiliated colleges and universities. Thankfully, Baylor pays many of its professors well in comparison!

Robin,

I don’t consider either you or Bart a small fish. Neither is it Dr. Blaising who has volunteered anything close to what you have alleged occurred. You mention a ‘prestigious position,’ imply ing a permanent faculty position offer instead of a temporary library appointment through the end of a semester, and make it look as if Dr. Klouda should be grateful to the seminary for such an offer. You act as if the administration was not seeking to remove Dr. Klouda from faculty.

That, Robin, is absurd. Whether or not Dr. Blaising’s testimony will be impeached in court is yet to be seen. I am simply asking you to verify what you demand others accept as fact.

And it is obvious you cannot.

In His Grace,

Wade

Brother RonW,

Thank you for pointing to my mistake. You are correct the BF&M2k does not say anything concerning women serving in the role of Deacon.

As to Capital Hill Baptist, I believe you will find that they operate on an Elder system. While they are a congregational rule, which keeps Baptist polity, they are Elder led. If I am correct, and I believe I am but I will have to dig further, they do not ordain their Deacons, but their Elders are ordained. Scripture does not appear to state that Deacons need to be ordained, but it does give clear indication that Women are not to be ordained.

Blessings,
Tim

I wish that people would stop referring to Dr. Klouda as having resigned. A forced resignation is not a resignation, it is a termination. It always has been. It always will be.

Brother JasonK,

Here is the bottom line. Dr. Dilday was offered resignation and he refused. He was then escorted to his office and his personal belongings were removed by him. He did not come back on campus after that day. He was fired. Dr. Klouda was told in 2004 she would not be recommended for tenure and told it would be best if she found another position. In May of 2006, nearly two years after telling her the news, she was offered another position with the same pay and the same benefits. She was allowed to continue teaching classes for three semesters after being informed she would not receive tenure. She had free run of the seminary libraries. She conducted research on a Lily research grant, she enjoyed all of the benefits of an employee. She resigned with an offer from another school of higher education. That is a resignation.

Blessings,
Tim

to all: pardon me!

the BF&M2000 does NOT mention the role of deacon as to being only for men! I added that to our church’s statement years ago and forgot that I did so! that quotation was from our doctrinal statement!

I apologize…next time I will “look it up”!

btw,

it’s a church planters prerogative to edit the plants doctrinal statement…when ones wife, brother and sister in law are the only members at the time, lol! I’m not so sure I could get away with a “tweak” so easily at this point!

Tim,

Maybe I am reading you wrong, but it seems like you are saying, in the case of SWBTS, that the president should set the theological direction. If you applied that thinking to the IMB, then we would not have ended up with the problem that we have. Dr. Rankin was not in favor of those policies, yet they were approved anyway. Dr. Patterson seemed to have a different view on the matter than the majority of the trustees (enough time had not passed in his tenure for a majority that had approved Dr. Klouda ro have turned over). If the IMB had functioned like SWBTS, where the president was given latitude to set personnel/faculty hiring policies, even against the desire of most of the trustees, then we would have a very different SBC right now. Instead, Dr. Rankin was embarrassed by his own trustee board and we find ourselves in our current predicament.

I would guess from the comments of Robin and Tim that you have never been fired, nor have you been asked to resign. They feel suspiciously similar to me.

When I began my educational pursuit at the University of Oklahoma several years ago, an esteemed professor stood before the class and told us that he was about to bestow upon us words of wisdom that, if taken in and embraced, would serve us well throughout our educational journey. His words of wisdom I have never forgotten:
“Librarians are the enemy.”
There is no way in the world that you can convince me that a position in a library is a good as a position as a professor, no matter what the pay is.
There is more than one way to show a person the door. There is the confident way, “You’re fired.” And there is the politically expedient way, the way that you think will save your own backside, the cowardly way. “Why don’t you just find another position, and go quietly away?” It sounds suspiciously like “You’re fired” to me.
I pray that you never have to go through either one. Especially if the reason is unfair, and illegal.

Tim, I think the dichotomy between “Minimal” document vs “maximal” document is bogus.

The BF&M is the statement of doctrine and practice that links Southern Baptists. It is our statement of those beliefs and practices that we hold in common and that define us as Southern Baptists.

The group that forced the policies at the IMB did so to exclude from service those who would not be excluded under the BF&M. they are telling people who are in 100% agreement with the BF&M that they are not fit for service as missionaries. I don’t think that’s fair. It has nothing to do with minimum or maximum standards.

We have as a denomination chosen not to speak to PPL or other issues. To exclude people the BF&M does not exclude seems wrong to me.

And, obviously, Dr. Klouda was hired by a conservative president and a conservative BoT, who believed in and followed the BF&M 2000. Other seminaries have hired women as professors.

Dr. Patterson comes in and changes that. What was his basis? The BF&M 2000? No. That did not speak to this issue. It was his personal opinion.

So, SWBTS is in trouble today because it did NOT follow a standard and guide, but followed the opinions of Dr. Patterson and undid the actions of a conservative president and a conservative BoT.

The SBC has set down standards of doctrine and practice that are the basis of our fellowship. To exclude from service beyond the parameters of that document is wrong.

Brother Dave Miller,

You say; “Other seminaries have hired women as professors.” In all due respect, I believe your openness of your statement presents a huge flaw. This is not about women serving as prof’s. This is about Women teaching Pastors how to Pastor. Name one of the other five seminaries that employ a woman in the Theology Department.

Blessings,
Tim

Dave,

You have perfectly articulated my argument for the past two years. Like you, I have no interest in personally attacking Dr. Patterson, but it does seem that he has acted beyond the consensus of the SBC in the Klouda affair as well as in his influence in the IMB policies. My only interest is in that behavior ceasing. If that would stop, I would not concern myself any further in these affairs.

Tim,

What if Dr. Rankin had begun purging the IMB of cessationist missionaries? It is not addressed in the BFM, but it was his personal perogative. If his trustees did not oppose him, would you think that he had the right to do what he was doing? I would not.

Brother Dave Miller,

I believe I can answer both of your questions in this statement.

The IMB BoT is set up in a way that has a personnel committee that handles personnel issues. They do not leave that for the President. Why? I do not know why. I just know that they have a personnel review committee and on this committee they have, I believe, three different sub-committees. The SWBTS BoT is not set up the same way. They allow the President to find his own people and then presents them to the Trustees for approval.

There is a difference in the way the two BoT’s operate.

Brother Alan,

Dr. Patterson’s BoT have said nothing concerning his actions. Why don’t you advocate Dr. Rankin try that and see if his BoT will remain silent on the issue?

Blessings,
Tim

Tim,

That is exactly my point. Both scenarios go beyond the BFM and previously stated positions of the boards. In Dr. Patterson’s case, nary a peep is uttered. If Dr. Rankin were to attempt such a thing, he would be immediately fired. You would have a point if Dr. Patterson were acting in concert with previous board directives. He acted contrary to those directives, yet the board supported him, contradicting their own previous actions with a “momentary lax of parameters” argument that does not fly. Personalities are the key.

I really don’t have a dog in this hunt. My issue has and always will be the IMB policies. But, it is easy to see the inconsistencies here when you compare the relationships between the boards and the presidents of the IMB and SWBTS. That is my point and it seems that you understand what I am saying.

Colin,

The confession is the consensual basis for our cooperation as Southern Baptists. If not, then why would people have been forced to sign it? The entities are the arenas where that cooperation takes place. If the arenas change their rules, then they are de facto changing the basis of cooperation and are obliterating the consensus. I have always maintained that our entities should not be hamstrung to the BFM if the need to go beyond it arises. My point has been that there should be another way to arrive at consensus so that cooperation is preserved. My proposal has been that if an entity wants to enact a doctrinal policy that goes beyond the BFM, they should submit that to the SBC at an annual meeting. We should have a full year to debate it and come to a doctrinal consensus. At the next annual meeting, there should be a time for debate and then a vote to allow that entity to adopt the change. I would suggest a 2/3 majority. After this precedent setting vote, other entities may then choose to adopt the change or not, based on the will of the trustees of the entity. It would not be binding upon the convention in the form of the BFM, until a plurality of entities or state conventions adopted it, showing the true consensus of the SBC. At that point, the SBC president would appoint a theological council to consider a revision of the BFM.

This approach preserves both the autonomy of the entities as well as the agreed upon consensus of the SBC. It would happen only rarely and according to issues that were of enough importance to warrant such a change. It would give us all a chance to speak into the process and would take full power out of the hands of denominational elites.

I have been asking for such a process all along and even submitted a resolution to the SBC last year asking for the same. It never made it out of committee. It seems that such a process would only lead to the theological maturity of the SBC and would bring such decisions into the light. I can find no fault with it, but I am interested in what others think.

One final item. Since I am using Dr. Blaising’s testimony and you called me a liar from the statement I made, will you now DIRECTLY state that Dr. Blaising is a liar?

Yes or No?

Dave,

You are exactly right and I have never heard a convincing response as to why what you and I (comment #76) have advocated is wrong. Suddenly, I find myself outside of the definition of what some claim the true Baptist Identity is, and I never even knew that my continualist views and view on baptism were anathema. Who says so? When did they say so? All that I have seen is the decision of the IMB BoT. I am sorry that the decision of 50 people is not sufficient for me to just go quietly into the night, especially after spending years in the SBC, being an ordained minister, graduating from and SBC seminary, and serving as pastor of an SBC church in the deep South. You have to do better than that to convince me, and the fact that no one is willing to try shows me that your analysis is correct. They know that any attempt to do so would fail miserably.

At least that is my opinion.

Brother Alan,

Your opening statement is very bold. The confession is the consensual basis for our cooperation as Southern Baptists. Are you saying that the Abstract of Principles would have to come to the convention to be voted on? You do realize that you are now advocating turning back the doctrinal statements that began the SBC educational process. It appears that those who desire to “reform” the SBC, certainly have no problem doing away with the doctrinal moorings the old ship is tied.

Blessings,
Tim

we need to do away with the abstract of principles of sebts and sbts. they should be thrown out the door.

david

Wade,

Did Dr. Klouda ever discuss with her supervisors the financial hardship that her resignation would bring before she resigned? Did she ever inquire of other opportunities to stay SWBTS at the same salary level so as to avoid those hardships? Is it possible that both Dr. Klouda and Dr. Blaising are telling the truth from their perspective. Understanding the dynamic nature of conversation I can see how Dr. Blaising could have offered her a permanent position in the library which she was free to keep until she found a faculty position which would more in keeping with her desire and calling to teach Hebrew. I can also see how she might still feel as though she was being pushed out the door.

Tim B

well, i’ll say this. if the bfm2k becomes a maximal statement, then the abstracts should be tossed to the side. if all the other sbc entities will have to accept the bfm2k as a maximum standard, then southeastern and southern should fall in line. of course, i dont think that the bfm2k should be a maximum statement. but, if it does, then they should all fall in line, and no trustee nor missionary nor denominational employee should be allowed to have caveats, either! either you affirm it, or you dont.

david

Dave said,

“3) But there is no Southwestern IMB or Southern IMB. There is only one. And, by refusing people who are in COMPLETE agreement with the BF&M, the IMB Bot was usurping the right of the SBC to define its parameters of fellowship and cooperation. ”

This is excellent and I agree completely, Dave. Thanks for concisely identifying the crux of the controversy. We have spent so much time defending the autonomy of the entities (I’d like to see that autonomy defended if the entity in question did something that was not as acceptable to our friends here), that we have not realized that the autonomy of the churches of the SBC has been usurped. That is a very insightful statement and I would love to see someone address it.

Any takers? Actually, it deserves a post all its own, in my opinion.

wasting a lot of time on “what if’s”…this simply is not going to happen…this simply is a weak, misguided, rabitt chasing argument from the plaintiff. It will fail.
If the court did agree to this then once a decision is made in any institution for any reason(theological or not) then it could never be changed. Think about that. Wrong court decisions couldn’t be corrected. Wrong laws passed couldn’t be fine tuned or changed. Wrong business decisions couldn’t be corrected. And decisions made at schools(of any kind) would not be reversable.
Now there’s a prescription for disaster. How can a society improve itself for the better if it is locked into prior decisions…both wrong and right? How can a school meet its ‘mission statement’ if its locked into prior decisions?
It can’t…and this argument will find its way into the trash can.
They seem to be trying to imply that “all conservatives believe alike”(at least on this issue)…I think we all can collectively laugh at that one.

KC,

You have returned this to what a betting man would put his money on.

The other issue that is yet to be resolved and one which doesn’t seem to merit much attention in this matter with both parties is the biblical solution of Matthew 18.

It does make one wonder why a President of a theological seminary and a highly skilled teacher of Hebrew will not pursue the only remedy that is bound in heaven. How unfortunate for them. My prayer is that they will begin to pray and that God will grant them grace to pursue what He has already designed for His church.

This lawsuit is a minor problem when compared to the lack of obedience of the leadership at institutions that presumably teach scripture.

James 1:25-26 But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does. (26) If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless.

No one acts on these things perfectly….but nevertheless it should be acted upon….. the ball is in Patterson’s court on this one.

Blessings,
Chris

Chris J., so how much would it take to fix the situation between the two (albeit, more than just two if you include the Seminary, also.)

If the Matthew 18 were to be used, how would they split the baby? Who would be responsible for paying compensation to Dr. Klouda for what she says she has suffered? Would this all be a “kiss and make-up” reconciliation and no particulars ever verbalized? Could this possibly be resolved without Dr. Klouda accepting a position other than the one she was offered? Is the offer still available for her to work in the Library? Bro. Wade says she would have jumped at the chance so she could stay in the metro area and kept her insurance and home. If that is true, why not just place it back on the table?

Would that resolve it all? somehow I think not. selahV

Wes and SelahV,

First of all, I think it is appropriate to mention that because Matthew 18 may not have been followed in the beginning of the conflict many months ago, the results of that sin has spilled over into the courts and into relationships on either side of the issue. Furthermore, the courts may ultimately make the final decision. So it is in times like these,… that God ordains governments to deal with men and women who do not follow His Word. I hope that this issue between these Saints has not got to the point where both of these individuals are too proud to submit to the will of God in this matter.

The first step at this point is really up to Dr. Patterson (based upon the offence of the lawsuits). Conversely, it appears that Dr. Klouda was offended originally as well, so it may be best to get both Klouda and Patterson’s Pastors to assist and work out the offenses one at a time.

There is no doubt a multitude of things that need to be prayed through and to be addressed with multiple offenses at this point, but the objective is to bring unity to the body of Christ in their relationship. I really doubt that all the onlookers (bloggers) will be happy with the results. But the truth is that God is faithful and obedience will bring Glory to God and His church.

If no biblical remedy or Spiritual solution is sought,….it would be remise of the board of directors of SWBTS not to consider some action consistent with the biblical requirements for Pastoral ministry.

1 Timothy 3:1-5 It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. (2) An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, (3) not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. (4) He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (5) (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?

A leader or overseer must be above reproach,…..and deliberately not seeking resolution and refusing to use the best tool given to the church to build unity in the church is certainly not “above reproach”. I have not followed this from the beginning, so he may have already done this in the church and Klouda refused or visa versa. I may have missed that report, but it appears that Matthew 18 was never in the picture.

Dr. Patterson’s closest Christian brothers should help him avoid continued sin, in the event that Matthew 18 has never been in the picture. Hopefully, he will listen.

Blessings,
Chris

I’M COMMENT 100!

YES!

Brother Tim,

It’s actually just the opposite. Matthew 18 is eternal, and is always offered. It is up to man to obey and reap the benefit of God’s will.

One of the eternal factors of Matthew 18, and one of the reasons that is the primary and best uses for unifying is that it can be injected at any time. The problem for most humans is that they rush to men for judgment and do not depend on God. Sometimes it is costly, like the case with Dr. Klouda. There is no doubt that these guys want their money, and you can be sure that they would probably bring a suit to get it.

Well, the bottom line is this….. Matthew 18 is simply “theory” for some, but for others it is what God has designed it to be….a glorious remedy to bring Glory to God. It follows on the heals of God’s word through Paul to his faithful brother,

2Ti 3:16-17 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; (17) so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

It is sobering to let “theory” be the teacher and to never apply the truth and trust God with the results.

Blessings,
Chris

Brother Tim,

Well, ….doing the will of God would not be an indictment of guilt at all.

I am just urging it to happen. I can only pray that it does. An admission of guilt is the last thing I would be concerned with at this point. There are higher things at stake than a “perception of wrong doing”.

I will always hold out hope that a man of God will do the will of God. This is a “gimmie” putt. There should not be any other thought in the mind of a man of God than to reconcile with his brother or sister. What could be more important?

These kinds of decisions reveal the very heart and understanding of a leader.

Blessings,
Chris

Brother Chris,

How do you know that Dr. Patterson didn’t try your version at the start of this issue? How do you know that he did not approach this situation from the biblical perspective after the lawsuit was filed?

I do not know this happened and only those involved know. I am just trying to say I believe this is far beyond being able to resolve it in the way you suggest. Your suggestion is, as I understand Scripture, the first resource in a situation like this. That cow left the barn 12 months ago.

Blessings,
Tim

Brother Tim,

Our “pasture” friend cb is absolutely correct! If one truly believes that God is no longer able, because the excuse is that the timing is not to their liking, then that person is not understanding the power and sufficiency of the word of God.

I did say earlier that I was not sure if Matthew 18 was ever pursued. It appears that is was not, because I have not heard of anyone reconciling or being removed from the church, so that everyone would then have the opportunity to share the Gospel and love them back into the fellowship.

It is important to understand that the legalities, lawsuits, etc. have nothing to do with what God has called Klouda and Patterson to do. Those “things” are just symptoms of a greater problem that is not being dealt with at this time. The focus of these two individuals is not obedience to God’s word, but a focus to having money or “saving face”; instead of “unity to the glory to God”.

As I stated earlier, it is just unfortunate that they are choosing to disobey and not obey the word of God.

Blessings,
Chris

Brother Tim,

I realize that it sounds like a Godly resolution is untenable at this point…. probably the vast majority believes that God should stay out of this one. That is truly, truly sad. The reason it appears not likely is because the wrong things are being sought.

God allows us to use His perfect word (Matthew 18) to settle and unify for only one purpose. That purpose is that He be glorified. The solution is not about money, settling on positions at the seminary, back pay, saving face, etc. The solution is about submitting to the will of God and do this His way for His Glory. There is no better answer than following Matthew 18. That’s just the truth.

If any pastor from anywhere thinks that filing lawsuits are better than God’s ways, then so be it. That pastor is merely selfish and in great sin and God will certainly deal with his disobedience. But, just because a third party may try to influence someone’s decisions in no way changes the responsibility of Klouda or Patterson.

I would assume that Klouda and Patterson both have some Pastoral authority in their lives. If not, that is another issue in and of itself. Both Klouda and Patterson have every opportunity available to get with those Pastors and work this within the will of God. How that turns out, I do not know, nor should anyone really care. God is more concerned with the obedience of His children, than the games that men and women play in the name of Religion.

It’s not about fairness, …it is about obedience. God will meet out the justice. He never changes.

Blessings,
Chris

Brother Chris,

You write; “probably the vast majority believes that God should stay out of this one. That is truly, truly sad.” I do not believe that I have said God should stay out. I believe what I have tried to say, and even imply, is that God was not consulted when the law suit was filed. As a result we do not know what Dr. Patterson did to help resolve this, neither do we know what he did not do to exacerbate the situation.

As a result, I believe Dr. Patterson has done what he can to follow biblical guidelines. What you are asking, it seems, is for Dr. Patterson to lay down and roll over and concede everything to someone that has no intention to work things out biblically.

Brother Wes,

Though I have never met you, that I know of, I do consider you a friendly acquaintance. From that relationship, I believe we can call each other friends. With that said, I believe that Dr. Patterson is not getting a fair shake from Brother Chris’ perspective. Please note that I am not saying Brother Chris is not giving him a fair shake, but I am merely saying that using Brother Chris’ perspective, Dr. Patterson seems to be made into the bad guy.

Let me explain. I have a Sunday School teacher that is a lady and she is teaching a men’s class. I come to the church and I have that person removed to another place of leadership. She goes to head up our church library and is responsible for purchasing the books for the library and other materials that will help the Sunday School teachers. I am sued by this teacher because I removed her due to her gender. I meet with her and am told that she now has a lawyer and will not speak with me except through her lawyer. I try to set a meeting with her lawyer to discuss this situation. I would be a fool to set such a meeting. Why? The lawyer is trained in looking after the best interest of his/her client. They are not trained in looking after the best interest of the church or even in the best interest of bringing glory to God.

That is the reason I am saying that cow has left the barn. Another saying that we have around here is; My cow has been gone for two years, it is too late now for you to give me your bull What I am saying is that all of the things we are now discussing is aftermath issues. The principles that have been placed on the table really has no bearing because lawyers are now involved. Those defending Dr. Patterson would probably be amenable to discussion. But, I believe you will find that those for Dr. Klouda are looking for a pay day now.

Blessings,
Tim

Brother Tim,

You know I love you brother! I am probably not communicating this clear enough, because what I am saying is in no way implicating you personally, what I am implying is that Dr. Patterson and Dr. Klouda are both responsible to bring unity as believers to the Glory of God.

What I have tried to say, is that Dr. Patterson “can”, in a very effective way, cause Matthew 18 to happen. In other words there is no earthly law that prohibits him from following what our Lord has set forth as the remedy in Matthew 18. If Dr. Klouda rejects the love put forth by Patterson through the loving process of Matthew 18, then that would illustrate a hypocritical position, and her church family would have to deal with that by loving her in the same process of Matthew 18. Klouda “can” do the same. If Klouda causes Matthew 18, then she pleases her Lord and God is glorified. God honors that type of obedience.

Whoever is advising Klouda, if they are truly her friend, should without any reservation make her aware that the best remedy available today is Matthew 18. If they are saying otherwise, they are in great sin and are not qualified to pastor or lead God’s church.

To engage Matthew 18 is not “laying down and rolling over”,…it is standing up and being obedient.

Wes is correct. Because if both of these leaders actually stood up and forced Matthew 18 to the front of the line, the church would see an outcome to the Glory of God and the benefit of His body (unity between Klouda and Patterson). That is God’s will.

Blessings,
Chris

Ron, Tims Wes et al

Do you also think that the Missouri Baptist Convention should drop its case against the four “break away” entities?

MBC will appeal summary judgment order
By Staff

JEFFERSON CITY — A trial judge March 4 canceled the jury trial and granted summary judgment in favor of Windermere Baptist Conference Center on statutory grounds. Missouri Baptist Convention (MBC) officials announced that they would appeal the ruling to the Missouri Court of Appeals in Kansas City.

“We are deeply disappointed that a jury did not get to hear the evidence,” said Michael Whitehead, MBC legal counsel, “but we also are glad to be headed back to the Court of Appeals, where we’ve successfully countered similar arguments before. We’re confident in our case on appeal.”

Callahan’s 43-page decision held that a trial was unnecessary because the motions “set forth uncontroverted facts sufficient to enter summary judgment on enough legal issues to dispose of every claim between Plaintiffs and Windermere.”

… This is from the Missouri Baptist Pathway

Brother Jim Champion,

MBC is not the issue here. However, trying not to divert the comments too far away, let me take a moment to answer your question.

No Christian should be involved in taking another Christian to court. We in NC have every right to take the Schools, Baptist Retirement Homes and WMU to court and fight it out suing them for everything we can get our hands on. If that were to happen and we win multi-million $ settlements I would vote to give every cent back to the entities. However, that is not the case. We have agreed to let God be the final judge.

As to Mo. they have to make that decision, because I do not have a vote. They are an autonomous entity and decide for themselves. It is up to the churches in their state to determine what their scriptural stand would be.

Blessings,
Tim

Jim,

Brother Tim is right that this is not the point of this thread so I will keep this short – Yes, I believe they should stop any and all court actions. In Texas, when Baylor was given away, there was a group of conservatives who wanted to take it to court. Though I consider myself to be a strong conservative, I disagreed with them and told them so. My objection was the same as it is now. Christians should be willing to suffer offense rather than take a fellow believer to civil court.

Grace,
Wes

It ws not my intent to sidetrack the post – consistency is a hard thing to maintain, esp when it is your own ox being gored , or Missouri’s as the case may be.

I also wish Klouda had not taken SWBTS to court and think that if SWBTS had offered to make her whole on her house, she would not have done so. Once upon a time I had friends in the theology school at SWBTS, Dr Klouda was fairly vocal stating that while Dr Bullock was in trouble (by the way, she was also fired for the crime of teaching history while being a woman – and did not sue), that she (Klouda) was informed that she was safe.

At this point, I think it would take SWBTS offering to buy Klouda’s house and pay her attourney’s fees. My personal feeling is that it wont happen, but like Chris hope that Patterson and SWBTS would make the offer and end it.

SWBTS does have a faculty manual, with requirements for the granting of tenure in black and white- there is no guarantee of tenure, in fact many people have been denied tenure over the years – I have never understood why SWBTS did not simply let her go through the process, not grant her tenure and go on down the road. Had they done that, klouda would not have had a case, although she would have had her job for a few more years.

Jim

Wayne,

Tim is right. I am not always “right on.” Actually, I am often very off of “right on.” I do thank you for the compliment. Wayne, I do hope to meet you someday. When that happens you will agree with Tim.

Tim,

I still believe that even though I am not often “right on” that God is.

Therefore, I still contend that there is a way to come to a conclusion on this matter in a Biblical manner.

Several folks will have to repent. Several folks will have to humble themselves before the Lord. If James 4 is true (and it is) then ALL parties could still humble themselves in God’s sight and He would lift them up. The world may laugh us to scorn, but God would be honored by true repentance on the part of His people.

Tim, you know my heart on this matter and you know who I believe should make the first move no matter the cost.

None of this mess should have happened in the first place, yet God is merciful and just. He loves us and will make things right if we truly seek Him above all else.

Do you agree?

cb

Brother Jim,

You write; “At this point, I think it would take SWBTS offering to buy Klouda’s house and pay her attourney’s fees. My personal feeling is that it wont happen, but like Chris hope that Patterson and SWBTS would make the offer and end it.”

I can’t speak for Chris, as he is very capable to speak for himself, but as one who also believes Matthew 18 can still be applied, let me state clearly that I am not prepared to say Dr. Patterson and SWBTS should pay anyone anything. I don’t believe that you should approach Matthew 18 with any agenda other than reconciliation. There is a vast difference between seeking a “court settlement” and seeking a “spiritual settlement.”

Both parties need to come together – away from the lawyers, bloggers, gossips and money issues. Humility is called for by all parties involved. Otherwise only the lawyers win.

BTW, if anyone is interested, as to the original question: I don’t believe that this case will undo the CR or set any major precedent. 8->

Grace,
Wes

Hey Chris,

I’ve been trying to figure out how to email you I have a question and don’t want to tie up this thread. Would you please email me at pastorwes@crcom.net? Thanks,

Wes

Dear wanda,

That’s the whole point….who would call themselves a Christian and then submit to the word of the Lord. Matthew 18 is a Gospel principle that protects the church.

Evildoer’s (Chrisitian pretenders) would end up being loved by those that understand the Gospel.

Blessings,
Chris

Brother Tim,

A real example of Matthew 18 is occurring in our church family and hopefully will be resolved by this Lord’s Day if not sooner….. here is what happened.

I have a teacher (woman) who was instructing a ten year old in class this last week concerning the “conscience” and the importance of honor or respect. This ten year old boy told his teacher that “respect” was actually committing a sin and we should not respect others according to James 2:9….and he said this is what his father had taught him. So, she tried to show him in scripture (though she wasn’t in the James 2:9 text to start with) where honor and respect are important, but she was not successful.

James 2:9 “But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.”

Well,…the little guy went to his father after the service and told him the situation. The father went to the teacher and told her “yes” it was a sin and he was sticking with what he had instructed his son. Well…as you can imagine, the teacher was very offended and wisely was patient. She came to me for advice. (So Matthew 18 is in full swing) Let’s watch God work. (it is simple to follow God’s order). I told her that we need to go to scripture to find the context and that she would need to confront the father (since she was offended) and work this out.

I told her I did not mind talking with the father about the text, if she would like,…. in order to help him understand the context and meaning of the various verses that contain respect and honor. But, it was up to her to get with the father and work through the problem of being offended. I can’t do that for her.

I was familiar with the father’s treatment on the verse, so as I met with the father today…I simply brought up several other scriptures that contain the various Greek words that are translated into honor and respect, and really challenged him to discover the context and see what he could find…. taking context into meaning and application.

I am 100% sure that this situation will be remedied and the teacher and father will be reconciled, and she will win over her brother in Christ because they are following and obeying the Christ that has set them free to engage in such.

That little episode happens all the time in churches and it is actually not to much different than Klouda and Patterson problem, but church members and leaders more often than not, simply sweep the situation under a rug and whoever has the highest rank or political strength wins. But God works differently and honors His Word; and we are eager for our “teacher” to get with the father and experience the unity that only God can bring for His glory.

Blessings,
Chris

Your question gets to the very core of the church (all the people of God) and its authority on earth and in heaven.

A couple of things to realize in our church:
1. I believe our folks understand the function and purpose of Matthew 18,….which is to ultimately and always bring Glory to God. This is vital. Without that understanding, you just have a bunch of folks trying to one up one another, not love one another.
2. The people know who their pastors are and how their gifts function for the Glory of God. So, they understand that we are not perfect, but our aim is to bring Glory to God in all these decisions no matter how long that takes. Since they understand this, and certainly the teachers do, then they are confident that God will be glorified in how we go about the process.

So to answer your question,…. “If the teacher had not gone to the father what would have been your next step?” I, as her pastor, would not let this go untended… I am shepherding and know that one of my lambs (the teacher) has been offended (has a slight limp), so it is important to me to tend that situation. I would help her (the teacher) understand how important it is for her to reconcile with her church which brings Glory to God. We would go down that path immediately,….if she was not ready or needed to understand more of why it is important to reconcile, then I continue to explain why it is imperative that we bring Glory to God, so Matthew 18 continues.

These situations happen all the time in churches all over America, and typically the thought of “unity” to the Glory of God never surfaces. The problems generally fester and end up in church splits several years down the line, or in law suits, or whatever else people enjoy watching.

So, if Dr. Patterson was acting as Dr. Klouda’s Pastor, forming a church in the setting of the seminary, then he would have a tremendous weight of responsibility to follow Matthew 18 for the benefit of his sheep (the teacher). That is something that can’t be pretended or mimicked. It really continues to prove if there was a church there or not.

Blessings,
Chris

ONe more thing…Don’t forget that passage in Matthew 18:15+ flows from Matthew 1. The entire chapter is about humility and forgiveness. All of it flows from Jesus putting that lowly child with NO social influence or power on his lap and saying: You must be like this child. (as far as I can tell, big name presidents are not exempt from this)

Matthew 18 cannot work with someone like Patterson who has NO humility, except to say he does. You expect Klouda to model what you are NOT expecting Patterson to model. Strange as he is the one with the big Christian title.

This thread is full of grovelers who show favoritism to Patterson and excuse him no matter what.

Admit it, guys. You are glad Patterson did what he did to her because she is a woman and you think she was in sin for teaching Hebrew to men. You think she should be flipping burgers at MCDonalds to help her family. How dare her be a scholar and dare to teach student men. What a crime. She should know her ‘place’.

Dear Wanda,

You must “not” be reading the string close enough. I have clearly stated that Patterson is responsible to engage the process and so is Klouda.

Matthew 18 works every time for the Glory of God. When you said… “Matthew 18 cannot work with someone like Patterson who has NO humility, except to say he does.” You are absolutely wrong. Matthew 18 is the only solution for what you are accusing Patterson’s of.

Matthew 18 has not been engaged to this point! That is the problem. Everyone, including Patterson and Klouda, and their accomplices are in sin and really have little regard for the Glory of God. They (all) continue to prove that to be true (just look at the blogs). That is not hard to discover.

My question….. Are Patterson and Klouda willing to serve God? I am simply interested in the “unity” promised to the church. It will be exciting to see Matthew 18 begin!

Blessings,
Chris

Additionally,

Let me try to tie this back to the original intent of this post, before Tim gives me the boot of fellowship. (smile)

Conservative Resurgence only carries true meaning if it follows and obeys the Word of God. I would hope that we are not trying to define CR (whatever that is), while denying the authority and sufficiency of the very processes that God has ordained for His church. If these simple processes like Matthew 18 cannot be practiced, or in this case “started”, then that is clear evidence that the wrong meaning of CR is being invented.

Blessings,
Chris

If you can get Patterson to be obedient to Christ instead of his own desire for power and control, I will eat my hat in Macy’s window.

I have seen Matthew 18 abused waaaaay too much and used for the leaders benefit. Remember, he who controls, wins. And I agree that the result is already bound in heaven but ONLY if done in persuing truth, with humility and love. Not when it is controlled and directed for a predetermined outcome by men in power.

So, why isn’t anything happening, guys? Why isn’t your guy settling, asking for forgiveness and doing the right thing? (I am talking to the Patterson apologists) He holds the cards and power to do so.

Why? Because he does not think he has done anything wrong. Neither do his trustees nor his clones. NOr does he think his high life using CP dollars is wrong, nor his private ministry he runs from the mansion he had renovated. The list goes on. He has made a career out of the SBC for personal gain, control and power. He needs to go.

If Dr. Patterson believed that women should not be trained in areas which would lead them to possibly have teaching oversight of men in a seminary setting and then proceeded to remove all female students (except those taking home ec only), would you support his right to do so because he is the president of the seminary.

I couldn’t. For some reason I still believe he works for us, not vice versa.

Scotty,

I hold an absolute view on Matthew 18. Lawsuits will always be made, be it with Christians or non-Christians. Matthew 18 is the best resolution that provides “unity” to its recipients that are the church. Lawsuits rarely provide unity, if ever.

Blessings,
Chris

wanda,

do you know dr. patterson? do you have first hand knowledge about what all took place? you make some very harsh judgements about dr. patterson and his “clones” if you dont?

you sound like a very angry person as well.

scotty and others,

what should dr. patterson do if he feels very strongly that women should not teach men theology, and he feels that teaching hebrew to pastors and future pastors fits that bill? how should he have handled it differently?

david