Sheri Klouda PhD vs. SWBTS, Paige Patterson

The thread is now cleaned up and re-opened.

 

So do the women in the music and religious education departments. Most any pastgor who has been pastoring for awhile will most likely tell you that it was a woman whom God used most in their ministry.

Acts 18:24-26 "Now a Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the Scriptures. This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus, being acquainted only with the baptism of John; and he began to speak out boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.

 

Could you explain how they treated her with love and fairness by removing her without any kind of compensation for their "mistake"?

 

Again this is false.

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

 

The article speaks of Patterson and the trustees as a hypocrites. He came there and went against the trustees former decision.

Again I ask how we she treated with love and fairness?

Could you even possibly help me to understand how women in the music and religious education departments can avoid teaching theology? When I took both music and religious education at SWBTS some of the best theology came from those departments. Anyone who reads about education in Israel comes away with loads of theology. If anyone studies sacred music they come away with volumes of theology. It was theologians who wrote many of the early hymns.

When Patterson spoke of the highest calling of women as being mothers and grandmothers he simply promoted polygamy. How can a woman have a husband in this world without more than one woman marrying a man? Apparently he has not read the Bible where it speaks about women being barren as God's choice. So if a woman cannot have children that is less than God's highest calling.

I cannot think of one time where Patterson has ever made any comment about making disciples. I have asked some who know him and they cannot think of one time as well.

Did you actually read the contradictions in the article
Dr. Patterson did not respond to requests for comment. Speaking for the seminary instead was Van McClain, chairman of the Southwestern trustees.

He confirmed that Dr. Klouda was told she would not get tenure and was encouraged to find another job. He would not say why.

But Dr. McClain did say that Dr. Klouda's hiring as a professor in the school of theology, which occurred before Dr. Patterson arrived in 2003, represented a "momentary lax of the parameters."

Southwestern, he said, has gone back to its "traditional, confessional and biblical position" that women should not instruct men in theology or biblical languages.

The president then was Ken Hemphill. During his time at Southwestern, he said by phone, "There was not a policy where [women] would not be able to teach church history or the languages."

Notice the contradictions in bold?


McClain mentions that they had gone back to their Baptist roots but Hemphill stated that there was never such a practice.
One has gotta wonder who's lying.

 

I never said that... and you're out of line for suggesting it.

 

As out of line for suggesting that someone is "money-hungry" when the evidence is very clear to the contrary?

 

You seem to not care about scripture at all, so far your attitude is, so what.

 

The evidence shows that she thought better of her "shock and surprise" and decided she could get some money out of the deal. I agree that she was wronged, but to change mid-stream... oh, you know what, I do want that money, NOW I'll sue... it's preposterous. If she was going to sue, she should have done it immediately. This just makes her look "money-hungry" now matter what her reasons. I'm done with this issue, because I've got bigger fish to fry a little closer to home than what's going on a day's car-ride away.

 

this post needs to close.

 

it is never right to do wrong because someone else did wrong first

 

what some are calling "wrong" is debatable. but here we should stop debating it. THIS POST NEEDS TO CLOSE.

 

Looks like this thread has crossed into the territory of judging motives... and that is unrighteous judgment.

We can certainly judge actions and whether or not someone is displaying the fruit of the Spirit/flesh, but judging of someone else's heart is forbidden since we have no way to know.

And we need to stop the stupid accusations that posters on this thread are "liberals" or "don't care about scripture" just because they might interpret scripture differently.

 

I agree that this thread should close. I apologize for my own judging and posting. I do not know Dr. Klouda, or anyone else involved. I'll be praying for the situation to end peacefully and judiciously.

 

Is fair and loving to lie to someone and mislead them? So you deal with what you would call a mistake and ask them to leave without any compensation to treat them fairly and there be no wrong done. When you are in an academic environment and do not receive tenure that is a huge black mark on your record. It is much like saying I was going to get fired so I resigned. The same trustees who hired Klouda are the same trustees who are there now. Would you trust a changing body of men with a changing theology? Let me assure you that one of them I know well and corrected him a few times in his laziness to study. I also heard him say to an assisitant pastor that they needed to visit someone in the church because that person was a wealthy man and they wanted him to joing the church. Is that the kind of men you want as trustees. They are doubleminded.

If they elect to do something then at least be consistent. That is one of the reasons I elected to leave the SBC. The SBC is a huge ball of inconsistent changing theology and lack of ethics. Too many examples of lack of integrity. Just to give you an example: A few years ago I wrote one of the major leaders in the SBC thinking that he could help me and all he did was tell me to leave that particular church. He did not take a stance against them as the Bible commands. All he did was to roll over and play dead like so many others i have seen in the SBC who claim to believe the Bible. The churhc I was at had a previous practice of leting the Mormon bishop preach all in the name of fairness. When I put a stop to it the deacons came aginst me. So I asked for help and got none. Not one SBC pastor would come with me. Not one SBC leader would either. Yet the SBC would take their CP money. Anyone who stay in the SBC ansd says nothing is a liberal as far as I am concerned. The people ought to be outraged over that kind of leadership.

My mother taught me to spell. She also taught me better ethics than my dad. My dad was good at stealing. My mom was very honest. Read the context of the passage you are attempting to get your theology from. It is in a church not in service to a church. If you believe what you do then you need to take a stance against almost every church in the SBC because most of them have women teaching boys over the age of ten. It was customary for the rabbis to teach the boys at the age of ten. The women taught the women. Only about 1-2 percent of the population were educated.

I was a member of a church for ten years that adhered to the practice of men teaching boys at the age of 10 and above. It worked well and they always had leaders. Even in that church they saw a distinction between a teacher in a Bible college, seminary, and a church.

My position is much like addition 1 + 1 = 2

If you have 51% women and 49% men it would be hard to proclaim a theology of every woman is to get married and have children. If every woman were to be married some would have to be polygamists. If a woman cannot have children by God's choice then wouldn't it make sense that God's choice in the matter is not what man thinks but rather what God's choice is. Who in the world am I to say God's choice (His highest calling) is for that woman to have children and therefore contradict what God has already chosen for her?

My position comes straight from the real world. It is a fact that there are less men than there are women. If you believe that the woman's highest calling is to get married and have children then each man would have to have more than one wife for each woman to be married to a man.

How does your position support the theology in 1 Cor. 7 where Paul states that it is better to be single than be married.

1 Cor. 7:6-8, "But this I say by way of concession, not of command. Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that. But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I."

I would prefer not to play God but rather deal with what God has already given in His choice and what he has chosen to do. I would prefer to read scripture and gain God's perspective rather than Patterson's opinion stated as fact.

He is absolutely wrong. A woman's highest calling is to please God, period. Nothing more and nothing less.

His comments denegrate God's choice in some women and especially young women still learning about who God is. God's choice is never second class or His second best. It is His choice.


Which is appropriate. He did his part to keep it as low profile as possible which is needful, godly, and responsible. Unlike others including Klouda who has claimed that she did not want this to escalate but did everything to escalate it including talking to the press.[/quote]

Of course he would want to keep a low profile. Why would anyone in his case want to draw negative attention to himself.

If we are going to state what we believe then it should be biblical and work in the real world. Jesus made it work in the real world. He also gave examples of how to make wrongs right with people. Christianity works in the real world. It is not just some dream of a man whacked out on a drug.

So your thoughts about doing right are to mislead and lie to her? Then after she buys a home give her two years and then fire her? Apparently she had excellent evaluations by her students and other faculty members. The most honorable thing they could have done is to ensure that she was well taken care of in every way possible. She did not change her theology or anything else. They did after they hired her. Are they to blame or her?

Let me assure you that it is not just an issue with women. It is other unethical issues as well. I personally know some of the former administrators and it is a lot about substandard academics and other things they do not want the public to know. They have threatened students telling them that if they say anything against SWBTS they would be removed. Students and professors at a secular university can voice their opinions. In fact a number have free speech platforms. A few times I presented Christ in that platform. That situation is what makes for a free exchange of ideas. SWBTS does not allow for that exchange of ideas. Without people being open to criticism they are shutting off opportunities to grow.

When Dr. Dilday was fired they offered him hush money. If they had nothing to hide why would they offer him money with strings attached?

Those who have nothing to hide, hide nothing.

Most people want to feel good about the organizations they are asociated and want to trust their leaders. However when that trust is violated then they get mad.

 

I think the real problem here is that you have a bitterness, that boarders on vindictiveness agains the sbc, this seems to be your usual type of posts where sbc is concerned

 

Wnating to keep this low profile has nothing to do with wrong doing. It is a liberal fallacy that everything questioned or even wrong should be brought out into the public. No scripture to back that up. I believe Donna is correct.

 

There are so many different issues here that it is hard to keep all of this together.

1. Does Paul's prohibition of women "having authority over" or "teaching" men apply to a seminary position? The prohibition specifically applies to a woman serving as an elder with a teaching responsibility in the assembly, as Paul states it clearly. So, does being a seminary professor constitute equality with the office of elder in the church and is teaching in a seminary class the same as teaching in the assembly? That's the question. There is no prohibition of women teaching "scripture" to men anywhere else in the scripture. And if that were the case, how would you apply Acts 2:17-18?

2. The second issue relates to lawsuits, and whether or not they are permissible in this situation. Matthew 18 prescribes a Christian means of settling disputes between believers. The problem is that we have some individuals at Southwestern Seminary who won't sit down and agree to settle the dispute using Biblical means. Attempts have been made, but there is no authority to make the leadership at Southwestern adhere to the scriptural principles. In that case, according to the scripture, they are making a choice. Refusing to settle disputes as mutual believers in Christ results in one party being allowed to consider the other as "pagans." That's not what I say, that's what scripture says. There is no scriptural prohibition keeping believers from suing unbelievers in a court of law.

3. The real issue is whether Dr. Klouda's version of events or Dr. Patterson and Dr. McClain's version of events is accurate. The testimony in favor of Dr. Klouda has been consistent and favorable in support of her version of events. Dr. Patterrson and Dr. McClain have changing stories and no corroborating evidence to support any of their versions of it. Their position has basically been, "We have the authority and power to do what we did and don't have to explain it to anyone." Their confidence is based on the fact that they hand-picked the trustees and were careful to make sure they all were full supporters and loyal to Dr. Patterson as one of the leaders of the "conservative resurgence" before they were selected. The one trustee that dissented from their actions is now being harrassed and attempted to be removed from the board. Is this the reputation Southern Baptists want to have?

The standard provocations that come forward regularly on this board when these kinds of issues are discussed, i.e., accusations that if you don't agree with "me" you're just a liberal, feminist, and you're lost, dying and going to hell, are silly, unproductive, and reprehensible to be coming from a Christian mouth and mind. Neither the SBC, the "Conservative Resurgence" within it, nor Southwestern Seminary's president and trustees are inerrant or infallible. They're wrong on this one.