Sheri Klouda PhD vs. SWBTS, Paige Patterson

Hopefully there will be no response about lack of suffering.....it is pretty obvious that the Kloud family has suffered.

 

I am glad that some of my brothers got here to answer first. I read this before I left for work and wanted to sit on it a bit before I replied IMHO, your posts on this thread have a flavor of trolling. In a quick search, I've been able to come up with quite a bit of information about Professor Klouda and how this has harmed her, outside of my personal affiliation with the school.

I find it embarrassing that SWBTS, a school that I have held in high regard, has treated her in this manner. She has not changed. She is the same person they hired, since it was their philosophy that changed, I feel that she should have been allowed to continue in her position and that they should have not hired any more women professors. I hold their actions in contempt. If the powers-that-be at SWBTS did not feel that women could remain in proffesorships at the seminary, then there were many other recourses than flat out dismissal.

 

Crass? That is rediculous. Just because I mentioned the biblical mandate not to sue oen another and drag the secular government into this is not crass. It is obvious that your emotions are rather high and assits you into exagerated emotions and in fact positions concerning this situation. Here is what you did not metnion:

She had two years before she lost her pay.

She had two years to find other employment.

She has two years to make all other arrangments.

Severence was unnecessary as she was given two years to move on.

Continued insurance was unnecessary because she was given two years to get insurance while still recieving her salary.

Again because she had two years to make the change her "suffering" is greatly exagerated.

 

Wow.. now I am a troll. I did not make any comments about her "suffering until I asked why folks thought she suffered. So I asked questions. And this was taken as trolling? That is silly.

 

you're so merciful.....just like Jesu...oh wait a minute. nevermind.

 

I didn't call you a troll, I said your post had a flavor of trolling. There is a distinct difference. You could have easily found out the information without asking short, curt questions through a search as I said. Your questions seemd baiting. Obviously some of us are very concerned for both her and the future of SWBTS.

 

I think it is hard to determine "curt" in simple and specific questions. i have read about this. But if someone else has another opinion I do not understand then I assume they have soem info I do not have. So I ask why they think this way without assuming I know. In this case it became an offense because I disagree with the lawsuit. But I disagee with such suits in any situation not just in these types of scenarios. I disagee with suing other christians across the board. We have a higher authority. And it is unbiblical.

I agree with not allowing her in that position. However having hired her it is important that she not be summarily dismissed. My questions are based on the knowledge that she was given two years to make a change. I would say that is above board and quite fair.

 

Then why didn't you add the information that she was given two years to make a change to the conversation before today? That was information I did not know and have not read. Your sharing would have led me to dig deeper as it has now. Those "assumptions" can go both ways.

You may not have intended for your simple questions/statements to be taken as curt, but obviously they were at least by me. It doesn't appear I was the only one. This is a difficult medium at times.

 

Have you ever tried to obtain insurance for a spouse that has major medical problems? You're not a "risk" anymore, you are a certain liability, and insurance companies don't write policies for those who are certain to cost them more money than their premiums cover.

I'm not happy that she is suing Southwestern, but Southwestern has not acted like a Christian-guided institution in a very long time. These kinds of actions have been going on for years, except people were generally accused of being "liberals" if they didn't fit the rapidly narrowing bounds of Patterson-ism.

 

Matthew 18:15-17

"If your brother sins against you, go and show him your fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector."

If I've read the accounts of this, all of that has been done. Dr. Klouda is now permitted, scripturally, to do this.

 

I did not share this because I have no reason to believe that those who seem to be speaking so "authoratetivly" on the issue did not already know. No real facts to this point have been listed. Mainly it has been distress over percieved hardships. When I asked those questions I thought that soemone had some info I did not have. So rather than jump to judgment I asked first before saying anything else. I see this as reasonable and courteous.

At the time it was in mind mind possible I either did not know something or had some info wrong. I think those who are maligning the character of Dr. Patterson should look into it a little more.

I think at this point that the fact that she has been discriminated because of her gender has driven people to (not necessarily on this board) avoid the fact that she was given two years notice . The gender discrimination has raised passions to a boiling point and in the process the hardships get exagerated in order to demonize the discrimination with as much impact as possible.

There has been no harships created. Two years is suficient time to aviod hardships.

 

This does not apply to the prohibition against lawsuits. Suing ignores Gods soveriegnty. Some things we need to just turn over to God.

 

The two are apples and oranges.

 

2 Tim,

I have said I'm hesitant about the suit. And I still am.

But I get the feeling that no matter what facts are presented, you will feel that the seminary acted responsibly.

To that end, why should we even discuss it, if we feel so strongly that we dismiss the other side of the argument?

 

I havent really addressed the actual dismissal much. I have been sidetracked with the perceived hardships created by it.

However one who teaches is in authority. I have yet to see any information that shows other wise.

 

Here is evidence to the contrary:

"The administration was patient with her and allowed her to teach a full two years after she was told that she would not have tenure," he said.
"During that time, she looked for a job, and the seminary even agreed to continue her support after her teaching responsibilities were over, so her family would have financial support. The seminary went far beyond anything that could be expressed as its duty or responsibility."




http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/religion/stories/012007dnmetnubaptists.176f48d.html

 

OK, 2 Tim, we'll agree to disagree on some of this.

Good day. :wavey: