« Beauty and the Beast–Final | Main | Have a Blessed Easter »
Stop the What ifs!
Posted by Tim Rogers | March 20, 2008
We can stop the what ifs as it appears that a decision is coming before long. See Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood for further details.
Topics: Seminary Issues |
March 20th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Brother Tim,
I sincerely hope that this decision is not the end, but only a turn back to the beginning. It would be very helpful for the church to engage in God’s will in this matter. As I have already put on your blog….I don’t think this is a surprise at all. The courts have historically never touched this type of stuff. These types of cases are simply a humiliation to the ones that are engaged in the fight. The judge was not able to bring “unity” to this no matter the decision. The court was simply protecting the precedent set forth in this country, which is a good one by the way when defended with the right motive.
I am still hopeful that Matthew 18 can begin with these two individuals who claim to be Christians. God will be glorified, and I am hopeful to see if Patterson and Klouda ever respond to that obedience.
What we have experienced so far is Religious Liberty at the expense of Gospel Unity.
Blessings,
Chris
March 20th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Like the “Christian” university who refused to admit black people, or the “Christian” university who refused to admit overweight people? The courts intervened in those circumstances.
March 20th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Brother Chris,
Who knows that now we can see God work. I would be great to see restoration come between the parties in this situation. No doubt this has caused a huge division.
Brother JasonK,
This seems to be a summary judgment. I have just completed reading all 50 pages. You want to know what is rich? Judge McBryde, speaking to the various argumetns raised by Dr. Klouda’s lawyers referenced case law 122F.3d 308, 311 (5th Cir. 1997), known as Plumley v. Landmark Chevorlet, Inc. Now it looks like Landmarkism will be blamed on the judge. :>)
Seriously, the judge said that Dr. Klouda’s arguments did not give “genuine issue as to any material fact“. That is not my legal opinion but John McBryde’s.
Blessings,
Tim
March 20th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
This is a SAD Day to see So Called Christians GLOAT about the outcome of this Injustice that had taken place. Now is the time to help a Christian Sister, instead of GLOATING as is in “Welcome to Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood” comments.
CB Scott and Chris Johnson have it RIGHT ON, AS ALWAYS
In His Name
Wayne
March 20th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Brother Wayne,
There is no gloating going on. We have been told for the past year that this case was a slam dunk. While we do not like to see Dr. Klouda in the position she is in, evidence pointed to other positions offered and she chose to resign.
Blessings,
Tim
March 21st, 2008 at 9:21 am
My position on every issue of interest to me is that in a denomination like the SBC, our doctrinal policies should not be arbitrary or due to the interpretation of a few. Any small group could hijack the SBC and enforce their views on everyone. I have never engaged much in the Klouda affair because it consisted of a lot of “he said, she said” and without knowing the parties involved, it is impossible to make absolute judgments. But, if it is wrong for SBC seminaries to have female professors, do all the seminaries practice this? GGBTS does not. I had a female Hebrew professor in the late 90’s and she still teaches adjunctively.
Apparently, a lawsuit was not wise. But, our biggest problem in the SBC right now is the proliferation of opinions and interpretations upon the Convention by those in power without the consent of the churches. Isn’t this what we revolted against during the CR? Now that it is coming from a more conservative angle we are alright with it. That only portrays a double standard, not truth.
Again, I believe that Dr. Klouda was treated unfairly, but I do understand that the judge did not want to make a ruling on an internal religious issue. Now that it has been kicked back to us, my question is, “When did Southern Baptists decide that we could not have female Hebrew professors?” If that is really a Southern Baptist view, then fine. Enforce it. If it is the view of a few, then Dr. Klouda was not treated well. We can’t do what we like and then claim that it is our religious belief. Dr. Patterson and the SWBTS BoT should serve and represent Southern Baptists, not their own views. Wasn’t that the message of the CR?
March 21st, 2008 at 12:07 pm
If I understand the decision, it was almost completely a first amendment thing - the courts (thankfully, I guess) refusing to interfere in what was determined to be an internal religious matter in a church-run institution.
Many of the arguments that have gone on in the blogosphere will now never be decided by a court.
Observations:
1) I read everyone I could - Bart Barber seemed to have the best grasp on legal issues. He is a man to listen to.
2) There is a lot of anger out there now, especially among those who supported Klouda. It is time for grace, not gloating (You didn’t do it here).
3) The court did not determine whether it was RIGHT to end Dr. Klouda’s employment, just that it was the seminary’s right as a religious institution. Whether it was right is still a point of discussion.
4) The court did clarify some of the issues of “fired/resigned” that a few trumpeted so loudly. the order evidently was something like this.
*2004 - told her employment as a professor would not be continued, but that she would be given reasonable time to find another job. So, as a professor, she was “fired.”
*The court was evidently convinced that an offer as an employee of the “Writing Center” (position/responsibilities undefined) was made. It continued salary and benefits, but not teaching responsibilities.
*After 2 years, she found the alternate teaching position she had been instructed to secure and she resigned, rather than accepting the position at the seminary.
So, she was “terminated” as a professor, but “resigned” from employment. Seems everyone had a little piece of the truth in that debate. The “either/or” that some bloggers insisted on is wrong.
March 21st, 2008 at 12:20 pm
I’ve tried asking the question a few places but no ones seems able to answer. Admittedly it calls for speculation.
If Dr. Klouda teaching the Hebrew language to men was sinful, why did Dr. Patterson allow the open, unrepentant sinful behavior to continue for as long as he did before he took action?
March 21st, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Dave,
You summarized the issues very well. What happened may have been legal, but was it right? If it was, then what are the implications for Southern Baptist churches in regard to women serving on staff, women serving as Sunday School teachers, women leading ministries, etc. This happens all over the SBC and in other seminaries and on the mission field. How far will this view be taken?
If it was sin for Dr. Klouda to do what she was doing, then how far will people go to root sin out of the SBC, or will we just allow it to fester? If so, can we expect God to bless us? Should this not be a “shout it from the housetops” type of issue? The BFM2000 seems to be balanced on this in that it only limits the role of Senior Pastor from women. But, the actions of SWBTS have gone much further than that. Dr. Patterson claims that his views are the views of the SBC, am I correct?
This should be interesting. Either what happened to Dr. Klouda has to be pushed throughout the SBC, or she was arbitrarily fired. Either it was done through conviction or it was done because in this regard, those who held this view had power and they could do it. Where will we end up?
March 21st, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Alan,
Precisely. If SBC entities are truly “churches” , and women in authority over men is a sin before God, then we must root out women in authority and in “men teaching” capacities wherever we can. If this is the SBC, then let’s go for it. I look forward to seeing the BFM 2010.
No woman shall be put in a place of authority over men in any SBC entity, nor shall any woman be placed in a position where she may, either intentionally or inadvertently teach a man anything related to God, the gospel, or the bible.
God help us.
March 21st, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Brother’s Dave and Alan,
Brother Dave said; If I understand the decision, it was almost completely a first amendment thing - the courts (thankfully, I guess) refusing to interfere in what was determined to be an internal religious matter in a church-run institution.
Many of the arguments that have gone on in the blogosphere will now never be decided by a court.
Brother Alan responded; You summarized the issues very well. If you have not already read the summary, you both need it. Beginning with page 46 Judge McBryde summarizes a section entitled; Other Reasons Why Plaintiff’s Alleged Causes of Action are not Viable He then lists, and summarizes, 4 other areas he saw Dr. Klouda’s motions failing. I will list the areas and then summarize his summary.
A.) Breach of Contract–Faculty Manual states a faculty member can be dismissed “in the exercise by the Seminary of its sole discretion over matters of ecclesiastical concern.”
B.) Fraud, Fraud in the Inducement, and Estoppel Causes of Action.–“There simply is no evidence in the summary judgment record from which a reasonable finder of fact could find that either of the defendants engaged in any fraudulent conduct toward plaintiff.“ (Emphasis mine)
C.) Defamation Cause of Action–In the foot note it is revealed that in Dr. Klouda’s deposition she said that Dr. Patterson did not make the comment “she was a mistake”. The “momentary lack of parameters” statement was not communicated in a defamatory way.
D.) Title VII Claim–Basically it states that Dr. Klouda was not able to assert her rights because more than 300 days had elapsed.
While you may feel this was not a good decision, it seems that the Judge covered all of the complaints she filed.
One other thing about the Defamation charge. It seems, according to the document, that Dr. Klouda was the one that released the “mistake” statement to the press. Judge McBryde ruled that If either of the statements reflects badly on anyone, it would be defendants. I wonder if that means that Dr. Patterson and SWBTS has a case for defamation? I am no lawyer, but the above remarks in italics is a direct quote from the summary.
While you may be disappointed that this turned out as it did, let’s remove Dr. Patterson’s head out of the hangman’s noose. If you want to argue Women in Ministry argument ad nauseum be my guest. But, Dr. Patterson has been cleared of any mis-treatment that has been falsely assigned to him over the treatment of Dr. Klouda.
Brother Bill,
Have you ever wondered why no one desires to answer your question?
Blessings,
Tim
March 21st, 2008 at 2:00 pm
I think there’s a lot of interaction ongoing with the caricatures of the seminary’s argument rather than with its actual argument:
1. SWBTS argued not that it is the equivalent of a church ecclesiologically (i.e., that Dr. Patterson is the Senior Pastor, Professors are Associate Pastors, etc.), but that a cooperative effort of churches that pursues churchly purposes deserves the same First Amendment protection as does a church itself.
2. SWBTS based its decision not upon an argument that no women should ever teach any man anything (look at the faculties of the schools of Education and Music), but that women shouldn’t be training Senior Pastors to be Senior Pastors (I dislike the title, but am using it for Alan’s sake).
March 21st, 2008 at 2:16 pm
By the way, item #2 in my previous comment is why the court opinion went out of the way to cite occasions when Dr. Klouda referred to what she was doing not as instruction in the Hebrew language but in the training of men to preach and pastor.
March 21st, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Tim,
My primary interest is not, nor has it ever been the lawsuit. I have said little, if anything about it over the course of these many months. But, I do think that people should be treated fairly, and I do have an issue with a small group deciding what Southern Baptists believe on issues beyond the BFM, as you know.
Bart,
I agree with you about the Senior Pastor label. I find it distasteful myself. I was using it because it was referred to in a BP article from yesterday on this topic. Here is the pertinent quote:
“Patterson has stated that the seminary’s policy prohibiting women from teaching theology to men is drawn from its desire to ‘model the local church.’ The Baptist Faith and Message 2000, adopted by a majority of messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention that year, states that the role of senior pastor in local churches is limited to men. Patterson, according to the suit, believes the same standard applies to the seminary.”
If the BP article is wrong, it would be helpful if they retracted their statement or cleared this up. If it is right, then the implications are mind boggling. The equivalent of a “Senior Pastor” of church to the seminary would be the president. If the seminary is modeling the church according to the BFM, then only the presidency should be withheld from women. If any teaching position is withheld from women, on the precedent of the seminary, and that view is applied back to the churches, then we would not have any women in any position of leadership from being on staff to teaching mixed Sunday School. That is actually how things are in the church that I pastor, but it is surely not that way throughout the SBC.
Now, SWBTS can adopt that view, but do not claim that it is the view of Southern Baptists. We had a chance to clear that up in 2000, and we were very moderate in its application for obvious reasons. The CR leadership knew they couldn’t get anything more than this to pass. My problem is that not having a woman teach Hebrew in a seminary is now seen as the Southern Baptist view, which it most assuredly is not. Lawsuits aside, we have a major problem with the implications of this view upon the local churches, as the BP article suggests is the intention of Dr. Patterson.
March 21st, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Tim: I suspect it is because they cannot. If someone shows me where my logic fails I’d be happy to consider it. One clarification if I may. Dr. Patterson has been cleared of legal wrongdoing. He has not been cleared of mistreatment.
March 21st, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Alan,
I just think that the trial documentation, lengthy and specific as it is, is likely a better guide to Dr. Patterson’s convictions than a brief quote snippet. Also, in other interviews he has repeatedly argued not an ecclesiological parallel between the two institutions, bit that those who train pastors should be “pastor-qualified.”
March 21st, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Brother Alan,
I do not want us to go back and forth, so I guess I will just say that we are in disagreement on this. While I understand that you believe Dr. Patterson should not have done anything and allow her to remain in her position, I would disagree. If he has a conviction that Women should not teach men how to be pastors and he bases that conviction on various readings in Scripture and is affirmed by the SBC BF&M that only Men are Scripturally qualified to be pastors, then he should act on his convictions.
His acting on his convictions is in no way a mistreatment of anyone. It has been argued all along that Dr. Klouda was thrown out on the street. After the facts of the case have been placed before a judge he has acknowledged that she was not thrown out on the streets. There is no mistreatment.
Blessings,
Tim
March 21st, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Brother Bill,
I believe Brother Bart, without knowing you had a questions pending, has accurately answered your question when he addressed Brother Allan.
Blessings,
Tim
March 21st, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Gotcha, Bart. I understand that perspective. But, that view is still unique to SWBTS. It is not exactly germane to the SBC.
Tim, I don’t want to go back and forth either. I am not really arguing with Dr. Patterson’s right to execute his view on this at the seminary. But, it is not exactly the view of Southern Baptists. There are many examples of women teaching men in SBC seminaries and it definitely happens in the churches. Are churches not involved in training men to be pastors? They should be.
No, Dr. Patterson is enforcing a view on SWBTS on this matter that is not the view of the SBC. If that is ok with the trustees, then I can’t say much about it. But, let’s call it what it is.
As for her being treated unfairly, I am only referring to the rules changing on her after she was unanimously brought on board by the trustees. The only reason that she was pushed out was because she was a woman. She did not just become a woman between when she was hired and when she was denied teaching opportunities.
I am not wanting to argue with you either. It is fine that we disagree. I am just clarifying my position here in light of your comments.
March 21st, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Bart: You and I haven’t interacted but Tim indicated that you answered my questions (before I asked). I don’t see it, but perhaps I’ve missed it. From what I have seen you are pretty even handed in your comments so I look forward to hearing your take on my question. I asked that if Dr. Klouda teaching men Hebrew in the seminary is in fact sinful, why didn’t Dr. Patterson terminate her immediately? Or at least remove her from teaching immediately?
Everyone (at least on one side of this discussion) has no problem saying that Dr. Klouda teaching men is wrong, but I don’t recall anyone specifically saying it was sinful. But if something is against scripture it is sinful. If that is the case, why wouldn’t action be taken against her immediately?
What am I missing?
March 21st, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Brother Alan,
You said; As for her being treated unfairly, I am only referring to the rules changing on her after she was unanimously brought on board by the trustees. I believe if you search the summary document you will find that the vote was not unanimous. The BoT that hired Dr. Klouda had to restrict her teaching duties to only languages. This was done as a compromise in order to get enough votes on the BoT to hire her. There still was not a unanimous vote when she came to teach. The court document reveals that truth.
Blessings,
Tim
March 21st, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Bill,
I don’t know whether I have answered your question or not. If you wish that SWBTS had shown Dr. Klouda the door, I can get you the email addresses to which you can forward your complaints.
It seems to me that the seminary wished to address a difficult situation with firm resolve to convictions coupled with compassionate behavior toward all involved.
I don’t have any inside information about this, but having read the information available on the Internet, I observe the following:
1. The decision was not exclusively Dr. Patterson’s; it was a decision by the seminary trustees. I know that there are times when I’m convinced of what we need to do as a church, but I must build leadership consensus before we can actually take action. Perhaps some delay in Dr. Klouda’s reassignment can be attributed to the process of determining the will of the trustees.
2. From what I’ve read, for some portion of Dr. Klouda’s time of continued employment at SWBTS, she was not actively teaching classes.
3. The offer to reassign her to the Library might possibly reflect just the kind of religious conviction for which you seem to be probing.
I’m resolved to let this matter go. This is, I think and hope, my final comment on the Klouda issue.
March 22nd, 2008 at 8:44 am
Brother Tim,
I think you are very right when you said….. “I believe if you search the summary document you will find that the vote was not unanimous. The BoT that hired Dr. Klouda had to restrict her teaching duties to only languages. This was done as a compromise in order to get enough votes on the BoT to hire her. There still was not a unanimous vote when she came to teach. The court document reveals that truth.”
This is the way decisions are made at seminaries or even corporations. There is absolutely nothing wrong with trying to get to a decision by having votes to determine the direction, its necessary. Your statement illustrates how convictions work though, in that some of the BoT recognized how to protect a women that has the ability to teach a human language, “Hebrew”. Some others on the BoT recognized it differently. The vote years ago, said it is possible….the current vote said, we can’t really see how. In other words, some see it as a compromise and others see it as keeping order in the church. It could just as easily been seen as “a compromise” to not allow her to teach “Hebrew” to a man.
It really depends on how one understands authority and how the “church” has been ordered to dispense the Gospel of God.
For instance, Priscilla and Aquila could have been brought into the same room of men (BoT) for an inquiry. Some would have said, “first of all we just want to commend you Priscilla, because we are certain that Aquila did all the teaching to correct the ignorant doctrine of Apollos and you remained silent. Thank God this was corrected.” Still others would reason,… “you know this was a real problem with Apollos concerning his misunderstanding of Christ, and both of you did a masterful job of correcting his ignorance concerning the Gospel of God while preserving the order and authority of the church. You are a blessing to us all.”
The only thing we have to go on to try and answer which view declares the truth is find the word of God in context. Luke agrees with the later reasoning, because he wrote it that way in the Acts 18 account. Paul makes it extremely clear to the Corinthian church and Timothy, for women to be silent, because they were abusive and out of order. How pastors reconcile these events is based upon ones understanding of order and authority. It is important not to sacrifice sound hermeneutic for the sake of conviction. One thing is certain; women were not silent “and” were “told” to be silent in the church all in the same collective breath. It is very important to understand the reason for a silent woman.
How men in authority understand scripture and make decisions is the way our Lord left it until He comes again. It is up to “sinful” men to make those decisions. May God grant us grace, wisdom and understanding!
Blessings,
Chris
March 22nd, 2008 at 10:51 am
chris,
a man and his wife sitting down with a young preacher over coffee to help the young man understand the bible better is not the same as a woman standing up in an authoritative way as teacher over men. i’m a complementarian. i dont believe that women should teach men in an authoritative position as teacher over men. that goes against the biblical order of men being the spiritual leaders.
but, at the same time, believing as i do, i’d have no problem with aquila and priscilla helping apollos understand the bible better. i see a huge difference in people just sitting around sharing the Word of God together, and a woman being the authority in a group…seen as the leader of the group….seen as the authoritative teacher of the bible in the group…..where men are present. i do not believe that that is God’s way. it goes against His order of things.
david
March 22nd, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Brother David,
I probably would not characterize what Priscilla and Aquila did as sitting down with a young preacher over a cup of coffee, ….I do believe that they realized while listening to his (Apollos’) preaching that he was not giving the complete story of Christ and thought it was important to the church and his evangelistic ministry to get it right. How they instructed Apollos is very instructive about the advancement of the Gospel and the authority in the church. It does appear that Priscilla and Aquila was not teaching language, but they were addressing theology. Yet, they were able to teach and maintain the authority and order in the church even in matters of theology. But, language is not theology.
This is important to me because I have a group of men and women in our church that would benefit from learning Greek and Hebrew. Learning Greek and Hebrew or any language (linguistic properties) is not teaching theology. I personally know that to be a fact. That’s possibly where Dr. Patterson and I may have disagreement. Teaching language is teaching language. How you apply the language moves into another discipline. He very possibly has created a class that is mixing the two disciplines for theological purposes. I do not attend SWBTS, so I do not know how he runs his instruction in Hebrew or Greek. Some of the finest and more specialized Hebrew and Greek language courses are not necessarily in seminaries and would very likely provide better information to seminary students about those languages. (Some may say that is exactly why Klouda is welcome to teach anyone in a Christian University, but not an SBC Seminary) But nonetheless, it appeared to me that Klouda was a qualified teacher of the Hebrew language and received high marks for the job she was doing. I believe it would be incorrect to try and set a new precedent for teaching a language to men as sin. There is not a precedent in scripture that would keep anyone from teaching men the Hebrew or Greek language.
Now, if a church (even to say a seminary is some form of church…or at least we know the church is in there somewhere) makes a language course an integral part of its theological teaching as part of its public worship, then there is scriptural precedent to protect a woman from the scrutiny that a man will receive in his authoritative role in teaching God’s word to the church. That may be what SWBTS is trying to promote, so I guess they will somehow try to explain that to the churches that associate with the SBC. It is not an easy thing to articulate.
Blessings,
Chris
March 23rd, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Chris,
The trial opinion goes out of its way to note in her own words that Dr. Klouda regarded herself as doing a great deal more than teaching the Hebrew language. She apparently regarded herself as one training pastors.
I think we can still have the theoretical discussion about whether there is anything improper about having a woman teach Hebrew-and-nothing-but-Hebrew to men in a seminary. But this, apparently, is not that situation.
I know that I, when I teach Baptist History at a seminary, teach a lot more than Baptist History.
March 23rd, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Brother Bart,
I agree….and I believe there is room for a healthy discussion on how to make these important decisions. It is possible to maintain unity with all members of Christ body and have authority with order to the glory of God.
The earliest of churches struggled with similar issues and we need to continue to study hard and prepare the men and women of our body to serve Christ to the fullest and have love one for another.
Blessings,
Chris