« Shall We “Build Bridges” or “Pull Down Strongholds”? | Main | Beauty and the Beast - Part Three »
What would happen if….?
Posted by Tim Rogers | March 11, 2008
I want you to take a little trip with me into our legal system. As we traverse the terrain let me assure you that I am not a lawyer and am not qualified to give legal opinions. However, neither are most of the people that sit in congress and they are the ones that make the laws. But, be that as it may, according to this recent ruling it appears that neither are the three justices that sit on the California Court of Appeals. But I digress.
I want you to read the argument below and tell me what would happen within the SBC if this argument prevails. The argument is one set forth by Dr. Klouda’s high profile, big money, team of lawyers. In “Klouda’s Brief,” on document page 11, you will find the following argument.
c. Patterson’s Alleged Belief Should Not Be Attributed To Southwestern
From the evidence, it is also questionable whether Defendant Patterson’s alleged “religious” beliefs are held by Defendant Southwestern. Even if Defendant Patterson was genuine in his beliefs, he certainly differed in his interpretation from his predecessor and the Board of Trustees, who, although of the same faith, found Dr. Klouda worthy of election to faculty and a tenure-track position. Dr. Patterson acknowledges that there is a view opposite to his that is held within the Southern Baptist Convention.
I believe that if this lawsuit is settled in favor of Dr. Klouda, then we will have allowed a secular court to effectively turn back the Conservative Resurgence. This argument gives the ability for every pre-Conservative Resurgence professor to sue the SBC because the trustees changed the president and the president did not hold the same interpretation of scripture as the former president. Some may want to argue that the Conservative Resurgence was about changing trustees and Dr. Patterson came into a board of trustees that had already hired Dr. Klouda. There is one problem with that argument: Dr. Patterson claims, and his claim is supported by Dr. Craig Blaising, that a number of trustees approached Dr. Patterson with their concerns. Notice how the above argument effectively separates the president from the entity. When a president is called to an entity that entire board of trustees knows what they are getting and how the president’s views will either align, or not align, with the entity.
Whether or not you believe a woman can teach theology to a man isn’t my concern in this post. My concern is that this one argument, which has nothing to do with gender inequity, has the potential to decimate the SBC. You have my concern. What are yours?
Topics: Seminary Issues |
March 11th, 2008 at 9:01 am
I believe that if this lawsuit is settled in favor of Dr. Klouda, then we will have allowed a secular court to effectively turn back the Conservative Resurgence
With respect, this is an issue about justice with theology as, at most, the background. As a conservative Christian I do not want injustice done in my name. Someone more important than us thinks the same, according to the Prophets.
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.
So if the CR produced injustice it is fundamental that things are put right in the interests of conservative theology. The very way you make this unlikely link (as if the court was anti-CR) illustrates why the courts are, sadly, likely better dispensers of justice (whatever the outcome) than the fellowship of believers. Of that we should be truly ashamed.
March 11th, 2008 at 9:09 am
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.
March 11th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Brother Alex,
In all due respect. If this is an issue about justice with theology as, at most, the background, then her lawyers would not be arguing from contract law theory. They are trying to argue that the EEOC ruling that has already been established by the Texas Supreme Court does not apply. They are trying to say, as it appears to this common preacher, that Dr. Patterson does not have the right to lead SWBTS by the theology that he believes. They are trying to say that the President is nothing more than a position head and the Trustees are the ones that lead the seminary. They are trying to say that the theology of the seminary in the past is supposed to be maintained when a new President comes on board.
To all of these things they are trying to say, it is a matter of theological decisions made by those that lead the entity. Dr. Klouda’s lawyers seem to be asking the court to determine if Dr. Patterson’s theology is acceptable based on the history of the institution.
Brother Ken,
Thanks for help in this oversight. I will have to fire my editorial team. :>)
Whether you agree or disagree with the Conservative Resurgence, tell me Brother Ken, am I correct in my assessment? If this argument prevails, is that not grounds for lawsuits for those moderate profs who left because the seminaries and other entities went conservative?
Blessings,
Tim
March 11th, 2008 at 9:24 am
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?
March 11th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Tim,
I agree with your assessment that we will have allowed the secular court to reverse the conservative resurgence. But in my opinion, and even more dangerous, we would allow the secular court to become the theologians that drive doctrine. Churches would be at the whim of the current strata of judicial moorings. Now, we investigate the seating of judges due to their stances on abortion, homosexual views, destructionist or constructionist views, etc. If this lawsuit becomes the norm, we [churches] will then be asking quite different questions in regards to the judicial branch. The clear and simple matter is that those that are pushing for this lawsuit are shortsighted at best, and ignorant of the consequences at worst. Dr. Patterson was given the authority to make this decision, and he made it. The trustees could have reversed his decision if they chose to, which they did not. Give the judicial branch one generation to make rulings based on theological decisions and we will not have undone the Conservative Resurgence… we will have undone the Reformation.
March 11th, 2008 at 9:37 am
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
March 11th, 2008 at 9:39 am
Brother John,
Give the judicial branch one generation to make rulings based on theological decisions and we will not have undone the Conservative Resurgence… we will have undone the Reformation.
You have stated it well.
Blessings,
Tim
March 11th, 2008 at 9:41 am
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
March 11th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Brother David,
My lawyer is not licensed to practice law. But, he certainly can read these legal documents and tell what they are arguing. He is really a great guy. He has a PhD. and preaches in Texas. I am proud to list him as my lawyer.
Blessings,
Tim
March 11th, 2008 at 10:35 am
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
March 11th, 2008 at 10:35 am
“I believe that if this lawsuit is settled in favor of Dr. Klouda, then we will have allowed a secular court to effectively turn back the Conservative Resurgence.”
brother Tim…I believe your concern is well over stated. first of all…”we”? who is “we”? either the law was broke or it was not, there is no “we” about it. the way you worded it confuses me a bit.
second…the profs who were run out in the 80’s were demonstratably teaching things contrary to stated and documented doctrines…the BF&M or the various confessions each seminary held to. So their being run off was justifiable in every way. this is not the case here…which is THE problem.
according to the BF&M the office of PASTOR and DEACON are reserved (rightfully) for men. she was holding neither office…and we have no “official” doctrine which has been adopted by our faith community forbidding a women from teaching in a non-local-church position (seminaries are not local churches).
also…women serving in leadership is not a liberal/conservative issue…or at least it does not have to be necessarily. I repeatedly point to the Assemblies of God and other Pentecostal denominations such as the Church of God in Christ…these groups ordain women yet none of them are in any other way “liberal” (just too darn excitable). of course I believe they are wrong to ordain women…but to call them liberal or not conservative is too far of a stretch.
so the conservative resurgence is well intact and shall remain that way…because it was not a “new thing” that happened…it was a return to the old, documented and established, theology of Southern Baptists.
March 11th, 2008 at 10:46 am
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.
March 11th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Brother Robin,
The simplicity of your statement illuminates the reason that Matthew 18 is a powerful and effective tool for the church. Should Matthew 18 have been employed in this case, both Patterson and Klouda would be in unity and your illustration could stand without question. Yet, there is no unity with Patterson and Klouda. Why let the courts decide how to unify?…..The government and courts are merely allowed by God to meet out judgment among sinners.
Blessings,
Chris
March 11th, 2008 at 11:04 am
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.
March 11th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Brother Chris,
The argument of consistency, appears to be a consistency of theology, and that is my concern. When is a secular institution qualified to tell a denomination that everyone must believe the same? Also, if the court is qualified, who determines what the denomination is to believe? Once that is established, as Brother John Mann says, we will have rolled away the Reformation. So, I guess, I humbly and graciously disagree. :>) (That is what I like about you, I can agreeably disagree with you.)
Brother IF,
First, let me say, if I do not agree with my Brothers and Sisters that are Southern Baptist it does not separate us. For example, I do not agree with Dr. Klouda for bringing this Lawsuit, or the ones behind her encouraging her to bring the lawsuit. But they are still Southern Baptist and until that changes the “we” is “we”. Now, please do not ask me to define “is”. :>)
Second, your argument about the Profs in the ’80s is a wee bit weak. You see, in the 80’s, we still had the ‘63 BF&M and it was that confessional statement that prescribed the interpretation of Scripture was “the criterion of Jesus”. IOW, what do I believe the Jesus would do about this. Throw Scripture out of the door, I am free to allow my fallen mind to interpret whatever I desire as long as it will hold muster in the world of academia. So, the Profs would have the ability to show that the BF&M2K changed from the predecessors.
Third, you are certainly correct as to the issue of Women in deacon and Pastor roles concerning the BF&M. However, please point me out another one of our 6 seminaries that employ a woman in the theology department that train men to Pastor?
Fourth, as to this being a conservative or liberal issue, I am not sure that I have eluded to this or even said it. I have looked back to see and cannot for the life of me find where I have demonstrably exhibited such a stance. All I have spoken about is rolling back the Conservative Resurgence. The battle for the Bible can be lost in one court ruling.
Blessings,
Tim
March 11th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Brother Chris,
I am in total agreement with your statement in comment #13.
Blessings,
Tim
March 11th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Brother Tim,
Your right….You and I can argue with a great deal of love involved. That is a good thing!
Allow me to replace a word to see if this makes any difference …. “When is a seminary institution qualified to tell a denomination that everyone must believe the same?” I hope that is not what the charter of the seminaries is, and furthermore, I don’t think the courts will tell the seminary what they can and cannot teach…….Now that would be a landmark case!
Seminaries can’t insist on much of anything. They are brought into existence to train and disciple. Any institution (seminary) is more inclined to make egregious error without quick remedy when compared to the local church,…simply because there is no power vested in the seminary organization, but there is power vested in the church.
The reformation will not be rolled away…..that can only happen if the Gospel is not preached….. The best the seminary can do is built upon the integrity of its leaders.
Your Friend,
Chris
March 11th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Thanks Chris
I am in full agreement with your statement also.
March 11th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Tim,
The salient and impressive point of your post is this: Klouda is arguing that a theological conviction is not “truly held” if it has recently changed. Religious liberty only pertains to those who never learn or grow.
March 11th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
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.
March 11th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Of course, one of the issues that has yet to be defined by those arguing for the lawsuit, is how should “injustice” be defined. Citing Romans 13, the advocates state that when the church fails, the government is forced to intervene. So… the transfer of an employee from one department to another department, maintaining the same salary and benefits is an injustice for what reason? If this is the case, the courts better get prepared. Their dockets are about to be overloaded with lawsuits.
March 11th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
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
March 11th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Brother Tim,
I do see what you are saying…I just don’t see this decision as being a legitimate threat of a liberal domino effect.
I think you and I agree that the 63 was being interpreted in a NEW way by both moderates and liberals, correct? I think authorial intent, in a historical context, would be rather easy to prove if it ever came to that point. the 2000 was not creating a new doctrine…it was clarifying the historic one. and I think this is a significant point, brother Tim.
one can not make such an authorial intent argument in defense of the defendant…there has been absolute silence regarding the role of women in seminary life in any doctrinal statement adopted by the SBC. so the question facing the court is, “is this truly a doctrine held by the SBC?” upon what can anyone say, “yes”? we’ve never dealt with the role of women in seminary life in an official way and so it looks like the defendant arbitrarily imposed his personal conviction into the situation. I mean…what if (God forbid) someone fired a black because they thought it unBiblical for blacks to teach theology to whites?
my point is that the moderates and liberals run off don’t have near the legs to stand on that sister Klouda apparently has, leagally speaking at the very least.
March 11th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
“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?
March 11th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Brother BDW,
I knew that my
moderateliberal friend and lawyer would weigh in on the situation. However, I will disagree with the terminology you use forced out, but also I am not sure about Dr. Marshall. It seems that the SocialSchoolclub was sold to another graduate school and Dr. Marshall had no other place to go. Or was she the professor that got fired at Southern because she was teaching in the School of Theology and Dr. Mohler did not believe in women teaching future pastors? Help me remember.Blessings,
Tim
March 11th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
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.
March 11th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Chris,
The seminary is not begging the court to make a decision. Quite the contrary, in their motions they have clearly asked the court to NOT get involved in this religious and theological issue.
IF and Dave,
The BFM is not the final authority in the SBC. First the BFM clearly states that the Bible is the final authority, and that the BFM is not. You are giving the BFM authority that the document itself clearly claims it does not have.
Second, our bylaws, which govern SBC entities, places these types of fiduciary responsibilities directly into each agencies BOT that are elected by the messengers. In this case the BOT hired Dr. Patterson, knowing his beliefs, and the BOT chose to not have Dr. Klouda teach in the theology department anymore. The BOT must adhere to the minimal doctrinal guidelines as adopted into the BFM, but the BFM is not a maximal doctrinal guide.
Blessings,
Ron P.
March 11th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
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
March 11th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
One of the outcomes may be a little more serious here. If the State wins over the Seminary’s policies , then you guys are faced with massive antidiscrimination suits from those who have been restricted entry to ministry because of their preference for defacto marriage relationships (of whatever type) over traditional marriage relationships. A school in Australia is embroiled in a very long law suit over just this issue.
Steve
March 11th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
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.
March 11th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Brother Ron P.,
What I meant to have understood is that the Seminary is “begging” the courts, as opposed to engaging Matthew 18 to bring the resolution to this issue. Begging is the legal mumbo jumbo that simply means that you allow the court to make the decision.
Blessings,
Chris
March 11th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
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.
March 11th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
I’m not going to judge who holds to a higher view of Scripture - Marshall or Klouda - based on a lawsuit or in Marshall’s case, the lack thereof. If I were to dig around a bit, I’m sure I’d find that there are quite a few well-known Southern Baptists and Southern Baptist institutions that have felt forced into filing a lawsuit at one time or another. And I’m sure that the ERLC has either joined in on lawsuits and/or filed amicus briefs in support of lawsuits.
As to Marshall, here is a brief synopsis from one of her former students, Michael Westmoreland-White:
http://levellers.wordpress.com/2006/08/27/
March 11th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
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.
March 11th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Brother Ron,
I’m not suggesting anything like that. My suggestion would simply effect doctrinal DISCRIMINATION (something we certainly do need). we already forbid the seminaries and agencies from permitting less than the BF&M.
that is not to even say every member of the faculties must be in lock step, not at all. I’m simply suggesting that we place limits on how these seminaries and agencies fire people over theological issues. it makes perfect sense to me…but I’m not in any influential position and I don’t have any dogs in the fight. I find it amazing that seminaries and agencies (which are not local churches) can fire people for doctrines that the Convention itself has not declared. it makes Baptist identity IMPOSSIBLE…and at best-not helpful and at worst-maybe illegal.
I understand such changes would be nightmare. That’s ok…we’re Southern Baptists and “YES WE CAN!” It would only be a nightmare if powerful people make it so. A spirit of humility would take care of most of the trouble. This needs to change…no matter how painful. I believe it’s absurd, contradictory and totally unfair (and now it opens one of our seminaries to a suit like this, for right or wrong).
March 11th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
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.
March 11th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Jasonk,
You overstate your case and leave out or change some important facts. The Trustees did unanimously hire Dr. Kloouda. They also unanimously hired Dr. Patterson after Dr. Klouda was hired, knowing full well his views on this and other conservative theological issues (including his general opposition to anyone getting tenure)l. Also, she was not fired, she resigned. If they had fired her, it is not against the law for a seminary to dismiss in these circumstances, as it was clearly based on theological convictions.
RE: Taylor University, I still want to know how anyone could not find a job for over two years as a professor that pays more than ANY of our SBC seminaries. As I pointed out in another post, I know a Ph.D in one of our seminaries, who makes less money than one of his master students makes at a junior college. Though not germane to this discussion, we desperately need to increase the compensation for our professors at our seminaries!
Ron P.
March 11th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
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.
March 11th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Just one point of clarification. The BFM 2000 does not limit the office of Deacon to men only.
That, of course, has no bearing on the Klouda case, nor does the Pastor clause.
March 11th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
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.
March 11th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Tim,
Apply your argument in comment #3 to the situation with the IMB trustees, Dr. Rankin, and the controversial policies. You’ll find yourself in an interesting situation, to say the least.
March 11th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
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
March 11th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Brother Bill,
“While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the offices of pastor and deacon are limited to men as qualified by Scripture.”
-The Baptist Faith and Message, 2000
March 11th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
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.
March 11th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Robin Foster,
You stated:
1. She was offered another prestigious position at the same pay and benefits.
2. She resigned.
3. Case closed.
I realize Robin that you do not intentionally lie. I also realize that if you were to unintentionally lie, you would correct it when confronted.
I believe, Robin, that you have lied in your comment above. I don’t believe you do so intentionally. So, to help you see the possible unintentional nature of your lie, please provide the proof for your statements.
Give us the specific prestigious position Dr. Klouda was offered.
Please identify the specific verification you have, in writing, where Dr. Klouda was given - and you have confirmed - the amount of pay she would receive at this prestigious position.
Robin, if you happen to be unable to provide such support for your statement causes you to lose credibility for anything else you say or write - unless you apologize for yor dogmatism without the ability to back it up.
Blessings,
Wade
March 11th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
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?
March 11th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Wade,
Perhaps you could explain what exactly an “unintentional” lie is, because I’m pretty sure the rest of the world just calls that “mistaken” or “wrong” or some other non-accusatory adjective. In fact, my dictionary actually defines the word “lie” as “an intentionally false statement.” Surely you wouldn’t word your comment in such a way as to actually, even if not technically, call your brother a liar, would you?
You know exactly where Robin is coming from in his statement, and your suggestion that his comment is untenable is either a) an accusation that Dr Blaising (actually) lied under oath in his affidavit, or b) the arrogant belief that the position of Associate Director of the Writing Center at Roberts Library is not a “prestigious” position. Which is more accurate to your intentions?
March 11th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
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!
March 12th, 2008 at 12:22 am
BDW,
My comment specifically referred to a M.A. student, with a degree from a SBC Seminary, who makes more at a junior college than a Ph.D at one of our seminaries. I clearly stated that I do not understand how, after two years, one could not find a job of greater pay. Based on that information, and on the universally recognized low pay of our professors, I am asking a sincere question.
I will also freely admit, that it was Dr. Barber’s post on March 5th that brought my attention to this and reminded me of the above referenced MA student and Ph.D professor. Dr. Barber states: “Since we also know that our Southern Baptist seminaries are among the lowest paying jobs in Christian academics, can’t we have some optimism that a highly qualified scholar will soon be earning far more than she earned in Fort Worth? A degree in Hebrew is not nearly as parochial as my Baptist History credentials.”
Blessings,
Ron P.
March 12th, 2008 at 12:31 am
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
March 12th, 2008 at 2:58 am
Robin Foster in #12 states that Dr. Klouda was offered another PRESTIGIOUS position at the same pay and benefits. After earning a Ph.D. in Hebrew in order to teach as she felt God had called her to do and she had spent years of work accomplishing, to be offered a job in the library is not a prestigious job offer for her. Maybe it would be for a trained librarian. If she was told she would not be allowed to teach Hebrew, she was fired from the position she was hired to occupy.
Irreverent Fox in #11 and Tim in #15 state the BF&M says only men are allowed to serve as deacons. Where does it say that? I understood it was deliberately left out by the writers of the BF&M because many of their strongest supporters allow women deacons. For example, many leaders of the CR have spoken in Capital Hill Baptist Church in Washington, DC and this church probably has had more members serve as SBC trustees than any church in our convention over the last 15 years, yet they have women deacons. Does that mean they are a liberal church or that the BF&M is a neo-conservative document because this issue was consciously omitted?
March 12th, 2008 at 6:02 am
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
March 12th, 2008 at 6:46 am
Wade
Please show proof that Dr. Blaising lied. Since you are willing to call me a liar because I am relying on his affidavit.
I find it hard to believe that a man would put his whole career and reputation on the line by claiming that he offered a job. I have heard things said about Dr. Blaising, but lack of integrity or lying is not one of them. Using your logic, you must agree with the far left liberal loons when they state that Bush lied. But I digress.
So, Wade, back to square one. Since Bart and I have relied upon the testimony of Dr. Blaising and you have either challenged our statements or called us liars, will you now have the guts to call Dr. Blaising a liar?
Second, are you willing to recant of your inappropriate use of the term, “terminated” since it has been shown that Klouda resigned? Please show your integrity by making right what you have made wrong.
March 12th, 2008 at 7:14 am
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.
March 12th, 2008 at 7:49 am
Jason
A resignation is a resignation. She was not forced to resign, but was offered another position in the seminary as by testimony of Dr. Blaising. If she continued until December and SWBTS let her go then I would agree with the termination label, but this is not the case.
One noted point. We have been told for over a year that she was terminated. SWBTS and Dr. Patterson have been painted as kicking Klouda, her disabled husband, and children to the curb. From the affidavits we see that every opportunity was taken to keep her employed, even to the point of offering her a job (yes I believe it was prestigious in a field she wanted to do) in one of the largest religious libraries in the world to help students better articulate the gospel in writing.
I have only drawn on what some have done in painting an unsympathetic villainess picture of Dr. Patterson. Now we see different.
March 12th, 2008 at 7:55 am
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
March 12th, 2008 at 8:01 am
brother Ron,
I quoted the BF&M2000 earlier in comment #43, but you can look it up yourself in section VI The Church.
March 12th, 2008 at 8:04 am
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”!
March 12th, 2008 at 8:15 am
Brother IF,
Thanks for your integrity. I looked at your comment on #43 and did not understand it.
However, I believe that Brother RonW is merely trying to point to inconsistencies. But we need to remember that each church is an autonomous body and can define the various roles any way they deem appropriate.
March 12th, 2008 at 8:16 am
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!
March 12th, 2008 at 8:17 am
Brother Alan Cross,
Good to see you back navigating within the blogs again.
I do not believe I understand your point as to my argument pertaining to the IMB.
Blessings,
Tim
March 12th, 2008 at 8:47 am
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.
March 12th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Brother Alan,
Your scenario would hold merit except for a couple of things.
1.) No one challenged Dr. Patterson from the BoT concerning Dr. Klouda. He worked through the proper channels that the BoT approved for him to work through for dealing with staff.
2.) Dr. Rankin has never given clear direction concerning his theological beliefs. As a matter of fact, it was Dr. Rankin that suggested taking the issue Brother Wade presented to the full Board for them to decide.
3.) Dr. Rankin’s embarrassment, if there is any, does not come from his own trustee board but from the fact that a now censured trustee took it upon himself to go outside of the trustee system to get his way. He used Dr. Rankin’s theology along with Wendy Norvelle’s gender to gain sympathy for his apparent desire to have his way.
Of course this is another subject for another post. But, it seems that had the BoT at SWBTS called Dr. Patterson’s hand on this issue Dr. Patterson would have done one of two things.
1.) Waited and brought it up again, after some time of instructions for those trustees that did not agree with his theological perspective.
2.) Left and found another place to serve.
Dr. Patterson, by the lack of sitting trustees saying anything about this, had the support of the BoT in his decisions. So, I honestly do not see how this would relate to the IMB.
Blessings,
Tim
March 12th, 2008 at 10:10 am
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.
March 12th, 2008 at 10:17 am
I see your point in how it played out, but maybe the difference is that Dr. Patterson has more power than Dr.Rankin amongst his trustees. It is clear that the trustees had a different view apart from Dr. Patterson, but once he came on board, they acquiesced to his view. The same courtesy was not given to Dr. Rankin. Is the situation really different, or are the personalities different? I would humbly submit that it is the latter.
March 12th, 2008 at 10:43 am
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.
March 12th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Brother JasonK,
In all honesty, I have never been fired. In one ministry, I had the church matriarch’s husband come to me and suggest it was time for me to leave. I did not allow that to dissuade me as I moved forward in how God was calling me to lead. I noticed that people began dropping off and found out that the word was out that my days were numbered. Did I get mad and sue the church? No. I simply sought God’s face in the matter and he moved me. Did I believe I did all that God had for me in that place? No, but I know that God moved me and have no qualms about it. Once in a secular position, I came in on Monday and was told that if one were hired after a certain date the company would be laying off those people. The severance package was going to be a lunch catered by restaurant chain where people would receive a minimum $250 and would go up to a maximum of $1000 depending on employment dates. The meal was going to be the following Saturday and your last date of employment was that Monday when we heard the news. So I left there that day with my one week back pay and no money in the bank. I went to the Saturday severance package dinner and listened as the Plant Manager spoke about the great work we had done and how all of us would be re-hired once the company turned around. I received my $200 check because $50 was withheld because of the taxes and went on my merry way.
So, in answer to your question. I have never been fired, but yea, I do know what it is like to be “forced” into a resignation. But, now, it seems that if I believe in the providence of God, if I fight against the “forced” resignation I am fighting against God’s perfect will for my life.
Blessings,
Tim
March 12th, 2008 at 10:50 am
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
March 12th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Tim, I will do a little research on your question as time allows.
However, here are my questions to you:
What authority does the IMB BoT have to exclude from service people who are in 100% agreement with the BF&M?
What changed at SWBTS that required Dr. Klouda to be sent packing? Conservatives hired her. She operated completely within the boundaries and strictures of the BF&M (according to her supervisor’s statement).
March 12th, 2008 at 11:45 am
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.
March 12th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Robin,
We are back to square one indeed.
One man says an offer was made to Dr. Klouda to work at another ‘permanent’ job at the ’same’ salary and benefits, and she refused.
Another woman, Dr. Klouda herself said that offer never occurred. You believe the man - I believe the woman. Your belief is based on the fact the man would never lie under oath. Of course, you have not read the deposition where Klouda was under oath as well.
So, logic would say that if Dr. Klouda says that she would have snatched at any job with salary and benefits commensurate with her previous job of teaching Hebrew because:
(1). Her sick husband’s medical team was in the DFW metroplex.
(2). Her daughter did NOT wish to leave her school.
(3). They had just purchased a home they loved . . .
And so, according to her testimony, the job was never offered to her in terms of ‘permanent’ or ’same pay,’ etc . . . and that it was simply mentioned she could move to the library instead of teaching Hebrew until she ‘found’ another job at another school . . .
Then it becomes the responsibility of those (including you) who say that she was offered a ‘prestigious’ position, at the same pay, as a ‘permanent’ faculty position at SWBTS to prove it.
You ask me to prove Dr. Klouda the veracity of Dr. Klouda’s testimony. You cannot prove a negative.
Let me repeat Robin, so you do not misunderstand. You cannot prove a NEGATIVE. If you say something DID NOT OCCUR, that is a negative. If you say something DID occur, that is a positive (action). It is the responsibility of those proclaiming a positive action to prove it did actually occur.
Once again, Robin, I ask you to prove it. You can guarantee the courts will ask Dr. Blaising.
In His Grace,
Wade
March 12th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
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
March 12th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Tim,
You and I have been in similar circumstances, it would seem. I was laid off from my job a few years ago. I got a little bit more severance than you did, but it wasn’t enough to keep me from worrying.
The reason they gave for laying me off was a “perceived downturn in the economy in the next quarter.” That downturn never came. It was frustrating and hurtful to say the least. Today I make four times what I made in that position. Not only has my own personal financial situation improved significantly since that day, but my capacity to give through my church has increased as well. I could not be more happy.
But let’s say for a minute that my boss gave a different reason for laying me off. Suppose he had said, “we are laying you off because you are a black man, and our bank is getting to be too dark.” Or, “We are laying you off because you are a woman, and women are not equipped to handle complex financial decisions like a man.” Or simply, “we don’t believe people like you should be working for our bank.”
The hurt goes even deeper, because unlike your experience at the plant, or my experience at the bank, it would have been a situation that no one could ever do anything about. A black man can not change the fact that he is black. And a woman cannot change the fact that she is a woman. That’s why it is against the law to discriminate against people on the basis of race or gender.
Because of what the law says, a person who is let go, however they are let go, because of their race or gender have a right to sue their former employer for letting them go. Hopefully then, in the future, employers will think twice about firing people because of things that are out of their control.
No, our situations were in no way similar to Dr. Klouda’s.
March 12th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
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.
March 12th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Dave and Alan,
I think you are asking too much of a confession of faith. Dave, you said, “The SBC has set down standards of doctrine and practice that are the basis of our fellowship.” Correct- the basis, the foundation, the minimal set of agreed upon standards of fellowship. You are asking the confession to be a panacea. I suggest reading Lumpkin’s “Baptist Confessions of Faith” to get a better understanding of the unusual recent requests of the BFM2000.
Lumpkin says of Baptist confessions:
For them confessions have ever been simply manifestos of prevailing doctrine in particular groups. No confession has ever permanently bound individuals, churches, associations, conventions or unions among Baptists. Even when issued, the confessions have allowed for individual interpretation and perspective, so that each signatory was made to feel that the statements spoke for him.
First, it is inconsistent to bind an institution or entity to a confession which you yourself are not fully bound. Second, confessions are not replacements for the hard work of doctrinal vigilance. Presidents are empowered and trustees elected to do this work. Though impatient, one cannot force the confession to do what he ought to have been doing himself prior on the convention floor.
March 12th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
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.
March 12th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Wade
The issue is that you are indirectly calling Dr. Blaising a liar through me. It seems that you won’t directly call Dr. Blaising a liar, you feel safer calling me one. Why is that? Again, your logic fits well with the liberal loons claiming that Pres. Bush lied.
Do you have evidence that Dr. Blaising lying? Southwestern is the defendant in this case and the last time I looked, it was up to the plaintiff to show evidence that something had either occurred or not occurred. So the requirement of evidence is not on me, but those who wish to defend Dr. Klouda’s statement, i.e. you.
One final point on your logic. I believe we would agree that a job was offered to Dr. Klouda for a position in Roberts Library. My question is, since she was told that her employment would end in Dec. of 2006, why would Dr. Blaising offer her a position if it was only temporary? Why go through the hassle of offering her a temporary position if she will be gone in 6 months? The fact is, that he wouldn’t. Your logic makes no sense.
March 12th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
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?
March 12th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
If the constitution and bylaws or budget of my church grants me the authority to spend money for a certain purpose in a certain way, I may act according to the authority of the church.
if i start spending money in a way contrary to the budget, or the bylaws, i am exceeding my authority as pastor and will get in trouble.
I may be doing something very good with the money, but I must act only according to the authority granted by the church. If I want to do something else, I can go to the church for the authority.
That is my view of what Hatley (under patterson’s influence??) did at the IMB. They acted beyond the authority granted them by the convention to exclude people based on their own opinions. They lacked authority.
If Southern wants to emphasize Calvinism in their teachings, fine! If SWBTS wants to promote premillennialism, fine. But if Southern excludes students from enrollment who are not Calvinist, or if SWBTS refuses to admit amillennialists, they are acting beyond the authority granted them.
I do not believe someone who is in full agreement with the SBC BF&M 2000 should be excluded from service as a missionary on doctrinal grounds.
If the IMB wants to restrict service based on the PPL, go for it. Take it to the SBC and get approval.
I think they don’t do that, because they know it would fail miserably.
March 12th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
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.
March 12th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Actually, Alan, I believe that the “powers-that-be” know very well that their view is a minority view. If those who advocated that viewpoint thought they could get it codified in the BF&M, there would be a motion to exclude all charismatic phenomema and such things.
But they know very well that such a motion would fail by a resounding margin at the SBC.
That to say, we may not please the elite power brokers of the SBC, but our views are very much in line with the rank and file conservatives within the convention.
March 13th, 2008 at 3:43 am
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
March 13th, 2008 at 8:37 am
Tim,
When I join a Southern Baptist church, I am given a BFM, not the Abstract of Principles. The Abstract is unique to Southern and SEBTS, but the BFM is what is used for the whole SBC. If the SBC wanted to eliminate the Abstracts, they would have a long time ago. Because they haven’t, I would imagine that it has been grandfathered in over the past 100 years and more. That is a far cry from just accepting the actions of 50 people on the IMB BoT a little over 2 years ago as the new law for SBC global missions involvement as we are being asked to do. Bringing up the Abstracts as a defense to be able to go beyond the BFM really doesn’t makes sense to me, especially since people like Danny Akin have said that he sees the Abstracts and the BFM as completely compatible. I’ll take his word for it because I don’t see him pushing one agenda over another.
March 13th, 2008 at 8:58 am
we need to do away with the abstract of principles of sebts and sbts. they should be thrown out the door.
david
March 13th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Tim,
Even Boyce and Manly, Jr saw what rascals may try to get into the teaching profession. The Abstracts are pretty basic stuff.
The BFM has grown into a reactionary document with extensively more fluff, but essentially is built off of the same principles as the Abstracts.
The BFM is not known very well among the members of the Baptist churches. I ask baptists on the street in Nashville all the time and they just give me a blank stare….and move to another subject. It seems to have become something for reference only, and not known in substance. Most people do not pay attention to it. I think the majority of the people who ca