Grace and Truth to You

Personal Reflections on the Southern Baptist Convention, Christian Ministry, the Expositional Teaching of God's Word, and the Occasional Thought on My Family and the World in General

My Photo
Name: Wade Burleson
Location: Enid, Oklahoma

I am a native Oklahoman, educated in Texas, and have spent the last twenty five years pastoring in Oklahoma. I have a beautiful wife and four wonderful children.

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

Sheri Klouda: Gender Discrimination, Federal Law and the Law of Christ in the SBC and SWBTS



Dr. Sheri Klouda, Professor of Hebrew, The School of Theology, Southwestern Theological Seminary, 2002-2006.
Dr. Klouda pictured at the seminary's convocation, August 29, 2002 affirming her adherence to the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message




"Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought." J. Rawls


"For [it is] time for judgment to begin with the household of God" (I Peter 4:17).


It is essential for Southern Baptists to speak out when there is an injustice within our convention. This post is written for the purpose of drawing attention to a brilliant theologian who served Southern Baptists as a professor of Hebrew at Southwestern Theological for a total of seven and a half years, three and a half as an adjunct professor and four as full time elected faculty, establishing impeccable credentials and an extraordinary track record, only to be forced out from the job of her dreams for solely one reason --- her gender.

A Bright Light in the SBC

Dr. Sheri Klouda joined the faculty of Southwestern in April, 2002, as assistant professor of Old Testament languages. She received her Ph.D. from Southwestern in May, 2002. She had previously been conferred her bachelor's and master's degrees from Criswell College in Dallas, and as already stated, she served three and a half years as adjunct professor at Southwestern prior to joining the faculty as professor. In the summer of 2001, Sheri served as assistant professor of biblical Hebrew at Beeson Divinity School at Samford University in Alabama.

Her conservative credentials are unquestionable. During the same trustee meeting at which she was hired, the SWBTS trustees passed a resolution thanking fellow trustee Ralph Pulley for his 22 years of service as a SWBTS trustee. One can rest assured that all eight faculty hired that day, including Dr. Klouda, were solid, evangelical conservatives who possessed a record of unashamedly defending the authority, sufficiency and inerrancy of God’s Word. Ralph Pulley and his fellow trustees would have guaranteed that to be the case.

Dr. Klouda was an exemplary employee of Southwestern and a tremendous representative of the Southern Baptist Convention to the evangelical world at large. She excelled in the classroom, building a strong reputation as both a scholar and teacher. Her classes were frequently full, and her students testified often of their admiration for Dr. Klouda. Donald Moore, a theological student at Southwestern who was diagnosed with Hodgkins lymphoma during his tenure, expressed his appreciation for Dr.Klouda in an article published by the school's journal. “I was taking first-year Hebrew with Dr. Klouda at the same time I was going through my first round of chemo,” Donald Moore said. “I thank God for (her) grace and good teaching and patience.”

Sheri Klouda gained the respect of the evangelical academic world. She served on the editorial committee and as a regular contributor to the Southwestern Journal of Theology. Klouda also contributed to The Bulletin for Biblical Research, a journal specializing in ancient Near East and biblical studies. Sheri also was a guest lecturer at the 57th Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society at Valley Forge, Pennsylvania in 2005, and the 58th Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Washington DC, in 2006. She also served as guest lecturer at SBL in 2006. In March of 2006, Sheri received a grant from The Association of Theological Schools, the prestigious Lilly Grant for Theological Scholars to partially fund her work entitled Building a Biblical Theology for Today: The Theology of Intertextuality.

A Sad Story

Paige Patterson was a hired as President of Southwestern Theological Seminary on June 24, 2003, a little over a year after trustees had hired Klouda. The trustees voted voted unanimously to hire Dr. Patterson just as they had Dr. Klouda a year earlier.

Some of the faculty at Southwestern were concerned about the hiring of Paige Patterson. Paige was asked during a June 24, 2003 press conference following his appointment if he would hire women in the school of theology. He responded that “Dorothy serves on the theology faculty at Southeastern”, and that “ provides somewhat of an answer.” Then he added, “there are ample numbers of men who are well-qualified for those positions.” Patterson said he planned to build the faculty with “God-called men.”

Patterson’s philosophical perspective on the roles of women in theological education prevented him from feeling comfortable about women teaching biblical studies or theology to men. In September of 2003, two months after his appointment as President of Southwestern and a one month before his official inauguration, Paige met privately with all staff and faculty . David Allen, the 2003 chairman of the board of trustees responsible for hiring Dr. Patterson, and who himself would be hired by Patterson in 2004 to serve as dean for the SWBTS School of Theology, said of that private meeting with faculty and staff, "While some speculate about Patterson's compatibility with our faculty, I have high hopes that our excellent faculty will work well with Dr. Patterson."

At that closed door meeting in September 2003, Paige gave personal assurances to faculty that their jobs were safe, regardless of gender. Sheri acknowledges her concern at the time, but after the faculty meeting, and the personal assurance by Dr. Patterson that her job was secure, she relaxed and continued in her commitment to invest her life and service in the school she loved. A few days after Patterson's inauguration, four professors resigned unexpectedly, including Dr. Bruce Corley, however, Klouda placed her focus on serving her school and being loyal to President Patterson and the constituency that hired her.

Sheri is the primary provider for her family due to several illnesses which have plagued her husband over the years. In July of 2003 William and Sheri purchased a home in Arlington, in order to be closer to the seminary so that she could spend more time at the school and with her family than on the highway commuting.

A little over a year after Sheri received the personal assurance that her job was secure, she was called to attend a meeting in June, 2004, where she was informed that she would not be granted tenure because 'she was a woman.' Ironically, Dorothy Patterson was serving as Professor of Theology in Women's Studies, but unlike Sheri, Dorothy 'only taught women’. Though it was often said by Paige and Dorothy that Dorothy worked ‘officially’ under the auspices of the School of Education at Southwestern, she was listed on the school’s web site as teaching in the School of Theology. As of January 2007, Dorothy Patterson’s name continues to be listed on Southwestern’s official web site as teaching in the School of Theology.

In that June, 2004, precisely a year after Patterson had been appointed President of the school, Sheri was told that it was ‘the President’ who would never recommend her for tenure. Why? It had nothing to do with her professional performance or collegiality, but simply her gender. She would not be given tenure by the President, because she was the only female teaching biblical studies in the school of theology, and that was not the proper place for a woman. There were many qualified men that could fill that position and it was the President's desire to replace her. Southwestern would give her two to three years to find another position at a reputable school, but she was to do her best to find another position as quickly as possible.

Sheri was stunned. In her mind she had the job of her dreams. While the issues surrounding tenure do not guarantee that a professor will retain his or her position at an institution, she saw herself as working towards tenure at Southwestern. She had invested her life, her family, and all her energy to be close to the school she loved. There was not one thing she had done to discredit her school. Rather, she was well liked by the students, had been loyal to administration and faculty, and had done her best to bring excellence to the school of theology in evangelical circles.

She was being forced out because she was a woman.

The Dark Ages of 21st Century SBC Life

If one wonders what goes on in the psyche of a man (or woman) who does not believe a woman should teach men Hebrew or teach men to properly exegete the Scripture through the study of the languages, one only has to read the words of Paige and Dorothy Patterson.

On October 25, 2004, just one year after Paige was inaugurated, and four months after Sheri was told to look for another job, Paige Patterson gave an interview with Baptist Press. He addressed the rumors that circulated a year earlier, just prior to his inauguration, that women would not be allowed to take classes with men at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, and “the rumor that women would be drummed out of the theology school altogether."

Patterson said he knew at the time that he would have to speak to the rumors one day, “But I sort of enjoyed watching the rumor mill work for a year," the Texas seminary president said. "Every once in awhile I've been known to feed one and watch how far it goes.” {Editorial comment: I am surprised at Paige's confession here and wonder if the content of some of the rumors he 'fed' will one day be revealed.}

According to the October 25, 2004 Baptist Press article entitled 'Women are Treasured by God.' Patterson said he purposefully scheduled a discussion of the issue of women in ministry because others often misrepresent his views on the subject, calling such misrepresentation a “diatribe and lie of the left.” Of the many attempts to explain what the Apostle Paul meant when he wrote the passage about the submission and silence of women (I Timothy 2:12), Patterson said, “Oftentimes, the answer of the evangelical world is that a woman cannot serve as a senior pastor.”

”Would somebody please find that in the text?” Paige asked. “It is not in the text. That is not said. There is no mention of occupation in this text at all. This is not a question of occupation. It is a question of an assignment from God, in this case that a woman not be involved in a teaching or ruling capacity over men.” Patterson concluded by saying "It is a prohibition of a woman teaching or ruling over a man . . . ."

There it is. Patterson's narrow interpretation of I Timothy 2:12 says it all and should cause our convention some serious concern. Paige is saying that this verse is not just addressing 'women pastors', but rather no woman shall have 'authority' over a man - period. No woman shall teach a man - period. No woman shall have 'authority' over a man - period. Dr. Klouda needed to be replaced as a professor because she was a woman.

Dr. Klouda was not a pastor of a church. Dr. Klouda was a professor at Southwestern. Dr. Klouda was not performing 'ministerial' services and was not 'ordained' or 'licensed' as a pastor. Dr. Klouda had been trained to teach Hebrew; in fact, Dr. Klouda had been trained to teach Hebrew at Southwestern Theological Seminary. Dr. Klouda was unanimously voted to be professor of Hebrew by the trustees of Southwestern in 2002. It cannot be argued that the institution had religious convictions that a woman cannot teach men - the institution's ultimate authority (the trustees) hired Dr. Klouda. It cannot be argued that the institution had religious convictions against a woman being in a position of 'authority' over a man -the institution's ultimate authority hired Dr. Klouda.

It can be argued that, in violation of federal law, Dr. Klouda was discriminated against because of gender.

It is critical to understand that Dr. Patterson replaced Sheri Klouda with a male on the basis of an interpretative application of I Timothy 2:12 which, according to Patterson himself, goes far beyond a prohibition of women pastors. According to his rigid and narrow understanding of this Pauline text, Patterson believes that it is God's will for a woman to not serve in any position of ‘authority’ over a man. Understanding his thinking answers several questions that have been raised in my own mind over the last two years:

(1). Why would Keith Eitel and Paige Patterson write a 'White Paper' and 'cover letter' respectively, taking to task the International Mission Board for women serving overseas as strategy coordinators with the International Mission Board?

(2). Why would the North American Mission Board no longer endorse women as military chaplains, particularly when the military is facing a shortage of women chaplains for ministry to women soldiers?

(3). Why would Dorothy Patterson only 'teach' women in Southwestern's School of Theology?

(4). Why would trustees serving any Southern Baptist Convention agency have a problem with a competent administrator of an SBC agency simply because she was a woman?

(5).Why would Dr. Sheri Klouda, one of the finest Hebrew professors our convention has ever produced, be forced out due to her gender?

Dr. Patterson closes out his October 2004 interview by giving us a concise answer to the above questions: “Ladies, the highest and noblest calling of God is mother and grandmother. Write it in bold letters with a big magic marker . . . (even) though it runs counter to an American culture that drives women to succeed in business and other endeavors."

Obviously, there are many of us who would oppose any philosophy that minimizes and marginalizes the role of women far beyond that of pastor in a local church, but when people in our convention are hurt by the application of that philosophy, then it is time for us to do something.

The Law of Christ and the Law of the Land

Sheri Klouda did not want to leave her job at Southwestern Theological Seminary. She had outstanding job performance evaluations, a student body that appreciated her, and an academic world that respected her. She was at the job of her dreams. Her family established themselves in Arlington, and her daughter was active in high school there. Dr. Klouda was focused on giving her best efforts to the service of the school. When she was told that she would not be given tenure because she 'was a woman' in a man's position, she was troubled. Her confidence in the adminstration was shaken. She and her family operated under the assurances of Dr. Patterson, given in September, 2003, and as a result took on the responsibilities of a more expensive home in order to be closer to the seminary, relying on her hospital benefits to meet William’s medical needs.

Through a series of broken promises that eventually led to Patterson quietly not assigning her teaching responsibilities for the fall of 2006 because of her gender, and then seeking to terminate her contract and benefits in December by 2006 (the middle of an academic cycle, and the worst possible time for an academician to find a job), this popular Hebrew professor found herself being phased out. Only because of the prestigious Lilly grant, which required seminary support of Dr. Klouda’s research, Paige agreed to find a way to pay Sheri until the spring of 2007. However, in the summer of 2006, Sheri was graciously elected to a professorship at Taylor University in Indiana, where she is appreciated for her work and for the contributions she is making to the academic community there.

The Klouda's house has not yet sold the Fort Worth metroplex, causing unnecessary hardship for the family, since the salary levels for professors differ greatly among institutions. When asked why she said nothing about her situation in 2004 when she was told she would have to leave because of her gender, she said she did not want to jeopardize her family by saying something that would cause the seminary to sever her salary while she was looking for a new job. In addition, she did not want to bring reproach on the seminary or on those who had effected her appointment to the faculty, hoping to make a quiet transition without publicity and conflict. Her husband's health has not improved, and he is currently having difficulty finding regular work in central Indiana, an area known for its economic struggles in recent years.

Our church has helped the Kloudas from our benevolence fund and I have personally given money to help support them. However, this post is not designed to draw out sympathy for the Kloudas. Sheri herself speaks highly of God's providence, and though she struggles to, she has expressed to me her solid belief that God is gracious and that he will bless her in whatever place of service she finds herself.

What bothers me is the extraordinarily restrictive views of certain leaders in our convention regarding women. This is not about 'being a pastor’' of a church. This is not a BFM 2000 issue. This is all about the belief among some that women should not have authority over men, whether it be in the home, the church, a business, or society in general.

The United States federal law forbids discrimination of employment based upon gender:

UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES

SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]

(a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

It is argued that churches and religious institutions do not follow under the authority of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidelines (EEOC), but my good friend, Gary Richardson has given me some great counsel in the past regarding the law and Christians. He told me that every good principle that forms the basis for government protecting her citizens is a principle that can be found in the Word of God.

For our convention to treat in such a poor and humiliating manner a Christian who is as gifted and competent as Sheri Klouda – just because she is a woman- is a very poor witness to the love of Christ in us, a sense of His justice over us, and an appreciation of the equality He brings to us all.

If there is not a change in the way we as the Southern Baptist Convention view, treat, and appreciate women, there will be more lights that go out in our beloved convention than the shining luminary known as Sheri Klouda.

For those who say, “But Scripture demands that ‘a woman should not teach or have authority over a man’!” (I Timothy 2:12), I would respond that I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture as much as anyone, and that word ‘authority’ is used just this once in Scripture. A clear meaning cannot be found in any place where Greek is used. It is not in the Septuagint, nor in classical Greek, nor any other literature of the day.

Some have surmised the only way to understand is as a slang word used to describe how the priestesses of the Temple of Diana tried to control and dominate men in that particular mystery religion popular in Ephesus. Could it be that some of those women were converted but were having problems staying away from the habit of using their sexuality and feminine charm to manipulate men, just as the people in Corinth were having a problem staying away from drunkeness which was part of the worship of Aphrodite in their mystery religion? Whatever the case, to interpret that text to teach that a woman cannot teach Hebrew or theology to a man, but at the same time grant doctorates to women in theology and the languages is at best illogical, and at worst chauvanisitc.

For those who say it is nobody’s business what goes on among the faculty of Southwestern, I would gently disagree. This is a Southern Baptist institution, and it is our duty to insure that things are done ethically, judicially, and biblically. The poor treatment of Sheri Klouda leads us to ask several pertinent questions regarding the direction of Southwestern and the Southern Baptist Convention as a whole.

(1). First, will our Southern Baptist seminaries eventually move to bar women from obtaining theological and doctoral degrees? If not, then why would an institution confer a doctorate in theology or the languages but at the same time forbid that woman from being hired in the professional jobs that require such a doctorate.

(2). Why would trustees unanimously hire a woman professor of Hebrew, affirm administration’s excellent job reviews of her, only to then allow her to be dismissed for being a woman? Does no SWBTS trustee comprehend that nothing changed but the President of their institution and his differing views of women?

(3). Do we really desire for just a few to dictate and determine policy that affects people throughout the entire Southern Baptist Convention, including some of the brightest missionaries and educators in our convention, particularly when the interpretive view that excludes people from service far exceeds the BFM 2000?

(4). Is there a conflict of interest when the chairman of the board of trustees, David Alan, adamantly supports Dr. Klouda’s hiring, but then just a year later, as an employee of that same institution, find himself being in a position where he could not object to her removal because of her gender? Or more precisely, how can an institution make decisions that place our convention in possible violation of federal law and nobody say anything?

(5). If someone says, “It is the President’s prerogative to do as he pleases,” then the question becomes, “Do trustees, administrative employees, and others not have the courage to speak out regarding an unjust action?”

The treatment of Dr. Klouda is indefensible biblically, ethically and morally.

I emailed Paige Patterson and Sheri Klouda prior to this posting to alert them and give them an opportunity to respond if they desired. Sheri Klouda preferred not to go on the record. I did not hear from Paige via email so I called Paige before this post went up to speak with him personally. He has not returned my call. I have gone to great lengths to insure that every fact in this post is accurate.

This post will be taken by some as a strike against Dr. Patterson's. It is not. I hope this post is a very strong rebuke against the belief by some in our convention regarding women. The unbiblical, narrow and unjust view of women is at the heart of what I believe to be a growing problem in our convention is putting us all in danger. I will do my best to convince everyone that the continued minimization and marginalization of women is detrimental to the SBC. I repeat: this issue is not about women pastors. It is about spreading a distorted view of women, allegedly based upon Scripture, but contradictory to the true meaning of God's word, not to mention the spirit and power of the New Covenant established by Christ Himself.

It would be consistent with a publicly confessed propensity for feeding rumors that false things might be said about Dr. Klouda in order to justify her removal from Southwestern for reasons other than gender, but those who know Dr. Klouda recognize the foolishness of taking such an approach. In fact, true Christians will seek to address the issues raised through the treatment of Dr. Klouda rather than attack the characters of those involved.

I am grateful for Paige Patterson and his contributions to Southern Baptists. I gladly call him my brother in Christ and I desire nothing but the Lord's blessings upon him. My love for Dr. Patterson, however, does not negate my desire to correct a very distorted view of women that places our agencies in general, and Southwestern Theological Seminary specifically, in grave jeopardy both morally and legally.

I close with the words of Sheri Klouda herself:

"Abraham's willingness to relinquish Isaac expresses his dependence on the Lord himself, not just on the divine promise alone. Abraham recognizes his son Isaac as a gift ultimately belonging to God, and the fulfillment of the Lord's covenant promises as a privilege, not a right." A. Boyd Luter and Sheri L. Klouda, "Isaac," DOTP 448.

Our convention belongs to God. It's time we gave it back to Him.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

377 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

This matter should and must be investigated by the trustees of SWBTS. Full and final accountability rests with them, not the president. Examples like this demonstrate the wisdom of our Convention elected trustee system. If the trustees are satisfied then we as Southern Baptists must be satisfied.

Wed Jan 17, 12:13:00 PM 2007  
Anonymous SBC Andy said...

Wow.

Well written in a calm spirit. Well documented as well.

I wonder if the trustees even know what happened with Dr. Klouda.

As an attorney myself, and a Southern Baptist, I can say you have displayed great wisdom in bringing this to our attention as a convention. Some may argue teh SBC has immunity to federal laws- but I'm not so sure. I can say this -- there is no way under the sun a corporation, university, or any other businesss entity in the United States that could get by with what happened to Dr. Klouda

It's better for people like you to help us see the issues than for people outside the system to try to correct us.

Andy

Wed Jan 17, 12:20:00 PM 2007  
Anonymous Bryan Riley said...

Oh, Wade. My heart breaks. It is a sad testament to the folly of man, but praise God it will be to His glory. This hits every button for me as an employment attorney, a minister, a Christian, and one who really has more questions than answers about the interpretations of Timothy and Corinthians around the role of women. Thank you for posting this. I am sure it was with great sobriety you did so.

Wed Jan 17, 12:24:00 PM 2007  
Anonymous Bryan Riley said...

If this gets public attention, I fear that the defense of the matter will go like this: (1) this is purely our right and is a simple exercise of our religious freedom; (2) all the pressure against our exercise of religious freedom is persecution; and (3) this is persecution because of our righteous defense of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

This is where it gets really sad, because terminating a professor of Hebrew has nothing to do with the gospel of Christ and I fear for the one who stands God contending that such a decision proclaimed the good news of Jesus. I'm glad we serve a gracious and loving God because I know how foolish I am.

This illustrates wonderfully the folly of dealing so dogmatically with very disputable and mysterious matters of scripture.

Wed Jan 17, 12:40:00 PM 2007  
Blogger Luke Smith said...

I appreciate your efforts to bring into the open what goes on within the convention. I believe that at least some of the controversy within the convention between moderates and conservatives has been at root a controversy over the way people have been treated. I do not say this to imply that there have been or will not continue to be significant theological differences that bring conflict. I suspect that most people in the churches I have grown up in (if not all) would object to the way this professor was treated. Unfortunately I feel pessimistic that there will be any change.

Wed Jan 17, 12:43:00 PM 2007  
Blogger volfan007 said...

wade,

i see no problem with a woman teaching men the hebrew language. but, the bible does prohibit a woman from teaching a man doctrine. that is very clear. no woman should be teaching a man in sunday school. no woman should be teaching men theology, or doctrine, in a seminary. no woman should be a pastor.

but, if all she was doing was teaching men the hebrew language, then i dont see the problem.

volfan007

Wed Jan 17, 12:44:00 PM 2007  
Blogger martyduren said...

Wow.

"Ethical authority."

I need for someone to show me the scriptural basis for this decision. Where are we taught that a woman cannot teach in a seminary? Cannot serve over a man in a ministry structure of para-church opportunities? Para-church isn't the church. I'm amazed that so many who believe in the exclusivity of the local church attempt to transfer an obviously local church teaching outside that focus.

In legal terms this probably goes to "gender bias" or something, but it just seems unscriptural to me.

Wed Jan 17, 12:45:00 PM 2007  
Blogger martyduren said...

volfan-
Where is your scriptural proof that extends it to college or seminary?

Stating it doesn't make it so...

Wed Jan 17, 12:46:00 PM 2007  
Blogger Wade Burleson said...

Bryan,

I believe there may be a problem with immunity based on 'religious freedom' in the Klouda issue.

If there were convictions against 'women' being professors of Hebrew and theology at the school, why was Sheri Kouda hired in the first place? A good attorney, and I know you are one, would show clearly there are no such convictions.

Second, why would the insititution bestow degrees on women in theology and Hebrew and not allow those women to hold positions where there degrees are required?

Third, Dr. Klouda taught at SWBTS for almost eight years.

She was released for being a woman. That is a violation of federal law unless there is immunity.

Again, it is quite possible that there is no immunity in this case. I am simply asking why are we placing ourselves at risk. In other words, maybe some in our convention need to reexamine their views and treatment of women, or at least the majority of us need to get control of the ship.

Wed Jan 17, 12:49:00 PM 2007  
Blogger johnthebaptist2007 said...

Wade - how can we "give it back to God?" What can be done? If we try to go through the trustees, that seems unlikely to get any results. Why can't we "trust" the trustees? Because consider your statement" ...David Allen, the 2003 chairman of the board of trustees responsible for hiring Dr. Patterson, and who himself would be hired by Patterson in 2004 to serve as dean for the SWBTS School of Theology,..."

Does does this not bring into the question the integrity of BOTH of these men and the trustees as a whole. That kind of blatant quid pro quo in SBC leadership is nauseating. David Allen leads the push to hire Paige, then Paige hires him as the DEAN. Wow. Is there not any accountability for these guys?

Again, what can we do except the Matthew 18 rhetoric and then just be told we should "leave quietly.?" Wade, I am glad you have not chosen to leave quietly. But other than blog, what specifically can we do?

Wed Jan 17, 12:50:00 PM 2007  
Blogger Wade Burleson said...

Volfan,

Has your wife taught you anything - ever?

Careful how you answer. :)

Wed Jan 17, 12:51:00 PM 2007  
Blogger Wade Burleson said...

Mo Scratch,

You raise an interesting question. Let me say, for the record, David Allen is a very good man. He would NEVER do anything intentionally to violate his integrity or the insitutions.

I simply believe you have a situation where he could not speak out because he was an employee.

This is the trustees job to get the ship we call SWBTS on course.

This is why any manipulation of the trustee process is a very serious matter. In other words, friends, family, debtors, and sycophants should not be trustees, and no agency head should ever seek to place anyone on his, or anyone else's board.

We're getting there in the correction of the problem. San Antonio will be a huge second step.

Wed Jan 17, 12:54:00 PM 2007  
Anonymous Benjamin S. Cole said...

I realize that Paige Patterson suffereth not a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man in the theology school at SWBTS.

But will he suffer her to teach men how to teach other men in the educational school?

Are men allowed to enroll in classes taught by:

Esther Diaz-Bolet?

Margaret Lawson?

Marcia McQuitty?

Dana Wicker

Norma Hedin?

Karen Kennemur?

or

Terri Stoval?

Or perhaps they don't use the Bible as a text of authority in the classes on christian education, teaching ministries, counseling, and church administration at Southwestern Seminary.

It seems to me the only way Paige Patterson can be consistent is to remove the Bible from the curriculum in the educational school at SWBTS.

Of course, who's really looking for consistency from Paige Patterson?

Wed Jan 17, 12:56:00 PM 2007  
Anonymous Bryan Riley said...

Can I throw you some more softballs? :)

Putting that aside, in response to Mo-scratch, I have seen repeatedly in my life how God takes things that seem most tragic and turned them into great victories for His glory. I think it is possible that this may be one of those times.

Wed Jan 17, 12:58:00 PM 2007  
Blogger Wade Burleson said...

Bryan,

Amen. I believe you may be right.

Wed Jan 17, 12:59:00 PM 2007  
Blogger Rev. said...

Sheri and I were fellow Ph.D. students together at SWBTS. She is, without question, a Hebrew scholar.

During our time of study a very well-respected professor was removed from her post, Dr. Karen Bullock. Like Sheri, she was hired by the "conservative" trustees. They appointed her to teach history (they noted it was not Bible, theology, etc., any position indicating "authority over a man") and then fired her because of her gender.

Because Dr. Bullock was not only a fine professor, but also a friend (my wife, Sharon, and I became friends with Karen and her husband, John, while we were all members at Southcliff), her termination brought a tremendous amount of grief. Nonetheless, she resigned with a sense of peace and was shortly thereafter hired by DBU.

These hirings/firings bother me a great deal. It would be one thing if "liberal" trustees hired these ladies, but they didn't. They were hired, then fired, by the "conservatives." What can professor Dorothy Patterson expect?

Wed Jan 17, 01:04:00 PM 2007  
Blogger Wade Burleson said...

Rev,

Thanks my friend for your courage in speaking out. May your tribe increase.

Wed Jan 17, 01:07:00 PM 2007  
Anonymous Benjamin S. Cole said...

Rev.:

Another award in her honor.

BSC

Wed Jan 17, 01:09:00 PM 2007  
Blogger Bob Cleveland said...

Wade and Bryan;

Of course God turns our misdeeds into glory for Himself. He did that at Calvary, but it was probably pretty tough on the Roman guards, later.

Wed Jan 17, 01:16:00 PM 2007  
Blogger Kurt Strassner said...

Wade,

I agree with you that (if your sources are correct) this case has been poorly handled. If she was not to serve as a professor of Hebrew because of gender, she should have never been hired in the first place.

I also commend your church for helping the Klouda family financially.

Less to the point, but still important, I think that your exegesis (or clever suggestion that 1 Timohty 2.12 cannot be exegeted) is on shaky ground at best. Regardless of what one thinks of the word 'authenteo', the word 'didasko' is used quite often in the NT and no scholar debates its meaning. Nor has the historic Christian church debated the meaning of this verse...until recently.

So the onus of proof is on anyone who wants to argue that this passage doesn't mean what it clearly says. "I do not allow a woman to teach...a man." The onus is also on those same folks to demonstarte that Paul would have thought wholly otherwise if the woman were not teaching in a church service...but a setting designed to prepare men to teach in a church service! Furthermore, the onus is on those who want to interpret this passage as meaning only that women cannot teach doctrine (as a previous post suggests). Again, that is not what Paul says...and we would be hard-pressed to figure out a way to exegetically demonstrate that this is what he means.

What am I saying?

1. It seems that perhaps SWBTS really mishandled this whole situation...on the front and back ends.

2. Although he may have mishandled the situation, and been misleading (or even dihonest) that does not mean that Dr. Patterson's exegesis of 1 Timothy 2.12 is incorrect. One can be correct and unwise/unloving. And one can be loving, yet incorrect.

3. I think that your handling of the text at question here leavse much to be desired. Mind you, I agree with your dismay and your heart for Dr. Klouda. But your handling (or mishandling) of this text opens a pandora's box of misuse and misinterpretation of 1 Timothy 2.12...and potentially other passages of Scripture as well.

You will laugh at me (and perhaps write me off as archaic)...but history demonstrates that those individuals, churches, and denominations who cannot take 1 Timothy 2.12 at face value eventually come to the place where they cannot take John 14.6 at face value either.

So, for the SBC that will, I hope exist long beyond our lifetimes, be careful how you handle the Bible...even on secondary or tertiary issues.

Wed Jan 17, 01:21:00 PM 2007  
Blogger martyduren said...

Rev-
Probably job security.

Wed Jan 17, 01:22:00 PM 2007  
Blogger Tad Thompson said...

We have lost our minds...and when we lose our minds we will eventually lose the gospel.

Wed Jan 17, 01:24:00 PM 2007  
Anonymous Bryan Riley said...

Kurt Strassner, it sounds like you are proving that the interpretation of Timothy is disputable at best, although I'm not convinced. The word is not teach, it is authority. And, in the historical and linguistic context, we'd be better served to weigh it against all of the bible and the character and nature of God than to try to say that it means a women may never teach or exercise authority over a man. Are you really thinking that God's character is such that no woman anywhere may ever teach any man anywhere or anything? And, how does that comport with so many other texts in scripture?? This has been debated extensively throughout the centuries and has not been only questioned in recent history. It also has been debated extensively on the blogosphere, and I have found a great many devout men and women who have a wide variety of interpretations of these and other passages regarding the role of women in the ministry and in the world.

Wed Jan 17, 01:27:00 PM 2007  
Anonymous Les Puryear said...

Wade,

I have no problem with women professors. Karen Bullock was my Christian History professor at SWBTSand I thoroughly enjoyed her. I know she's no longer on the faculty and I think I know why.

Having said that, why did I get the feeling as I was reading this post that I was reading Ben Cole's blog instead of Wade Burleson's? Did Ben feed you this information? Did Ben "ghost-write" this one for you? It sure reads like it.

BTW, how do you so much about seminary when you've never attended one?

Regards,

Les

Wed Jan 17, 01:46:00 PM 2007  
Blogger Kurt Strassner said...

Bryan,

Perhaps I misunderstand your comment...but the words 'teach' and 'authority' are both in the passage. I am simply arguing that, though we may debate what 'authority' means...we cannot debate what the word 'teach' means in the New Testament.

To your other points...no, the issue of having women elders/seminary professors/etc. has not been in debate throughout the centuries - unless you are referring only to the 19th-21st centuries. The last two hundred years is, comparitavely, recent history. And you will search in vain to find any major disagreement over the meaning of this text before that time.

"I have found a great many devout men and women who have a wide variety of interpretations of these and other passages regarding the role of women in the ministry and in the world" you said.

So have I. That doesn't mean that we may be mistaken. Some of my best friends are Presbyterians and I believe that they are mistaken in their understanding of baptism.

The point on this issue is that, historically, it is almost always a touchstone for the beginning of a greater doctrinal slide to come. Why? Because it requires theological gymnastics to prove that women should teach men in church settings. And one mental trick opens the door for many others.

Finally, am I arguing that no woman can teach a man in any setting? No. Paul is not referring to government, the workplace, etc. But he is clearly teaching on what is to be practiced in the church. and that said...again, the onus of proof is to demonstrate otherwise.

Wed Jan 17, 01:46:00 PM 2007  
Blogger volfan007 said...

kurt,

amen. you are correct...very correct.

the bible teaches that a woman should not teach a man doctrine...she should not teach theology to a man...period.

i agree that the trustees made a mistake in hiring her. it looks as if dr. patterson may have not handled this in the best way. i dont know...i dont know all the facts. but, it was the right thing to do if she was teaching theology to men. she should not have been given that authority over men.

also, the govt. should keep thier nose out of the churches business. this is a matter of what we believe...doctrine. and, the govt. should have no say in this.

i do feel sorry for this woman and her family. she's probably a great christian woman. but, she should never have been at southwestern teaching men theology in the first place. and, like i said, if she was just teaching the hebrew language, then i wouldnt see a problem with that.

volfan007

Wed Jan 17, 01:53:00 PM 2007  
Blogger John Fariss said...

It's de ja vue all over again!

Wed Jan 17, 01:59:00 PM 2007  
Blogger loveforthelost said...

Wade,

I agree with just about everything you posted. I was really heart broken to hear how this respected prof was treated.

I'm not trying to be antagonistic, here, but you have championed that we each should be allowed to hold to our interpretations of Scripture. That's fine. But as I see it Dr. Patterson is holding his and is being criticized. For most of us it is easy to discuss and debate as we sit in our offices at our laptops.

But if this is what Dr. P believes Scripture teaches, then he has no other option than to act accordingly. Right? (of course, the whole thing about telling her that her job was secure is another matter)

But if he believes this is what is laid out in Scripture, then I cannot see why we are criticizing him if we believe that on non-essentials there should be tolerance.

I am very open to correction here. And like I said, I'm not being argumenative.

Wed Jan 17, 01:59:00 PM 2007  
Anonymous Bryan Riley said...

We shouldn't derail this post, but no where in the first two chapters of Timothy does Paul state expressly that these are instructions to be applied only in the church setting; therefore, it has taken some inference and mental deduction to get to that conclusion. The "plain language" simply says no authority, no teaching.

If I recall correctly, and I am not a seminarian, but I believe the early church fathers discussed the apostleship of Junia. That is one example, and of course there is Phoebe. Then, there is that pesky passage in Galatians about all being equal in Christ. Then, there is the notion that male domination is simply due to the fall of humanity and that Jesus' redemption has an impact on all of this... Anyway, I think we disagree, and we both believe in the inerrancy of the Word. I simply believe we humans make errors and pick and choose where we want to be plain language followers based on our teaching, environment, culture, humanness. I know I'm guilty of it. But I pray I will continue to grow in my knowledge of Him.

Wed Jan 17, 01:59:00 PM 2007  
Blogger volfan007 said...

the context of the verse in timothy about women is the church....and doctrine...theology. the verse is very clear, and there is really no room for seeing it any differently. the only reason that people want to see it differently is that they are trying to make the bible and the church fit into the modern day culture of womens lib.

again, the church should influence the society....not the other way around. when are we gonna quit bowing down to the feminists and the evolutionists and all the other worldly groups out there who want the church to become like the world?
when are we gonna have the guts to say...no...it shouldnt be that way. and, if the whole world doesnt like it...then, so what? as long as we are being the people that the Lord wants us to be.

also, i guess some of you have no problem with anne graham lotz preaching to men at the sbc meetings either? is that true? would you want beth moore to come and preach and teach in your church?

wow! where in the world is the sbc going if we are gonna start throwing out all the verses that oprah and katie couric and planned parenthood and prof. darwin dont agree with? where in the world are we heading when people are so willing to throw sound, clear teaching aside in order to fit into the world and be accepted by the worldly bunch. after all, God forbid that we should offend anybody.


volfan007

Wed Jan 17, 02:08:00 PM 2007  
Blogger Wade Burleson said...

Les,

Welcome. I can assure you I wrote every word of this post myself -- and my wife will add her late night 'amen.' You can also rest assured that 'Ben' fed me no information.

I know my share about seminaries. I have taken several courses from three and been on the campus of all six of our SBC seminaries and have very close friends on the faculty and admistration of several of them. I even played on the championship flag football team at SWBTS in 1981 :) I have no formal degree, but I must have paid close attention in class! :)

You say 'I think I know why' Sharon Bullock is no longer on faculty.

Rev tells us why.

Is your thinking different from Rev's telling?

:)

wade

Wed Jan 17, 02:10:00 PM 2007  
Anonymous Benjamin S. Cole said...

Les:

I'll answer that question.

I did not write the post for Wade. I have quite the courage to write one for myself, which you will get to read before the weekend. :)

I did tell Wade about the Sheri Klouda fiasco months ago, at the same time I told every other person about it in a footnote for an article on my blog.

I did read the post before Wade published it, and I offered one change that Wade incorporated. The change was not factual, but stylistic.

And as for the cheapshot about seminary education...

Bad form, Les. Bad form.


BSC

Wed Jan 17, 02:10:00 PM 2007  
Anonymous Bryan Riley said...

Volfan, I hope we are more like Jesus. I hope we are more defined by being a people of faith following Him, the Word, than we are by being opposed to people (Katie Couric or whomever). That's what I hope.

When did you last pluck out your eye? When did you last refuse to judge? When did you last go to the elders to pray and be anointed with oil when you were sick? When did you lack speak in tongues or refuse to forbid someone from doing so?

When did you last decide that one verse was for the historical context or simply metaphorical and another one was literal and applicable as "law" forever?

I would love to sit at the feet of anyone filled with the Spirit teaching God's truth.

Wed Jan 17, 02:15:00 PM 2007  
Blogger Wade Burleson said...

Ben,

Would you not agree that all the information I received came from other people other than you for the post?

Know need to confront Les on bad form. I am glad to be in the same company of Keach, Gill, Spurgeon and other great Baptists. I am highly educated, including the languages, just not formally.

This helps me with credibility when I share Christ with a truck driver, or a business man, or a school teacher and I tell them, when asked, that I am formally trained in Corporate Finance.

:)

Wed Jan 17, 02:16:00 PM 2007  
Blogger Wade Burleson said...

Loveforthelost,

Is this the direction you wish our convention to head?

Wed Jan 17, 02:17:00 PM 2007  
Blogger Kurt Strassner said...

Bryan,

Thanks for the reply...and for your humility.

We are all equal in Christ (Galatians 3) - no male, female, slave, free, jew, Greek. Yet Paul, who wrote Galatians 3 also found it necessary, at a later date, to write Ephesians 5 (wives submit to husbands, children to parents, slaves to masters.

What does this demonstrate? That freedom and equality in Christ do not negate that God has set order in His world and in His church...including order for how males and females ought to relate to one another.

As to the fact that nowhere in 1 Timothy 1-2 does Pauls pecifically state that these are rules for "the church"...you are correct. But you have not read on into 1 Timothy 3, where Pauls says (v.15): "I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the CHURCH of the living God..." Very obviously, Paul IS giving instructions on the church...not the culture.

So to pick up on, quote, and correct your thought:

"The 'plain language' simply says no authority, no teaching"...in the church (1 Timothy 3.15).

Finally, to argue that we disagree because "we humans make errors and pick and choose where we want to be plain language followers based on our teaching, environment, culture, humanness" is true as far as it goes. But it CANNOT and MUST NOT be used as an excuse just to brush over areas of contention. If we believe in the inerrancy of the Bible...we had better be as eager as we can to find out all of its truth, and to practice it "in love." We must pursue both...hard as it is.

My whole contention in this thread is simply that it doesn't seem like anyone in this string of comments is trying hard to really grapple with the truth of 1 Timothy 2.

Wed Jan 17, 02:17:00 PM 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wade, Loveforthelost is right on target..Make sure not to miss it....
-Doug

Wed Jan 17, 02:18:00 PM 2007  
Blogger Wade Burleson said...

Kurt,

I clearly stated my interpretation of I Tim 2:12 in my post.

You just simply did not agree.

:)

That is your perogative, however, when your interpretation (or others) leads us to violate federal law, we are in trouble.

And by the way, we are NOT talking about women pastors.

We are talking about women professors.

Wed Jan 17, 02:19:00 PM 2007  
Blogger Wade Burleson said...

Anonymous,

I know he is.

:)

My question to him, and you, is this: "Do you wish our convention to head this 'consistent' path -- if so, one of these days every SBC woman will be wearing a hat and a burka, will not be allowed to speak at all with men present, will be only mothers and grandmothers in occupation --- all because of a consistent misinterpretation of the text.

:)

Wed Jan 17, 02:21:00 PM 2007  
Anonymous Benjamin S. Cole said...

Wade:

I just spoke to Les on the phone, and I told him exactly what I have written. I told you about the Klouda thing months ago. We never mentioned it again until you called last week and told me that you had visited with Dr. Klouda and several others who knew details of the case. I confirmed from my own knowledge of the events what you had heard.

The research was yours. The story is easily traced through a series of press releases and previous blogs.

BSC

Wed Jan 17, 02:21:00 PM 2007  
Blogger loveforthelost said...

Not at all!!! I'm just curious as to how we can out of one side of the mouth argue for unity in the essentials and charity in the non-essentials and then criticize Dr. P?

For most of us though, we never have to act on these matters. We are not in a position to have to decide on whether or not we should release a woman from a position. For Dr. P though, he does. So while I agree with you that this was wrong, and I don't want the SBC to go in this direction, how can I argue that he doesn't have a right, as the chisen leader and with the full backing of our elected trustees, to do this when this is what he believes the Bible sets forth?

Wed Jan 17, 02:23:00 PM 2007  
Anonymous Bryan Riley said...

Kurt, the only I hear saying let's not grapple for the truth is you. You've determined the truth in your mind. I'm saying that many question that and are also trying to ascertain the truth. You won't even admit that there are reasonable questions about the passage.

The only reason there isn't grappling over the truth here, and the only reason I haven't offered more flesh to the argument, is because this post isn't really about a proper interpretation of 1 Timothy 2; it is about a wrong committed against a fellow believer, not just under the law of the United States but under the law of love.

Wed Jan 17, 02:24:00 PM 2007  
Blogger loveforthelost said...

Make no mistake about it, I would, if given the opportunity, oppose what Dr. P has chosen to do. I think it is wrong and a mishandling of Scripture.

Wed Jan 17, 02:28:00 PM 2007  
Blogger Wade Burleson said...

Loveforthelost,

?

I'm trying to track with you.

I am objecting to a narrow interpretation of the text that EXCLUDES women from positions over MEN in a classroom (they can't teach Hebrew, theology, etc . . .), and I am saying that this view, which is common to Islamic Fundamentalism, is inconsistent with the sacred text and the New Covenant in Christ.

In other words, a Bible believing, BFM affirming, evangelical scholar WHO HAPPENS TO BE A WOMAN is removed from SBC service.

WHO, and I ask this again, WHO is for this? Our convention? The trustees? You? Me?

WHO?

I say that we are beginning to hear from people who are not.

Wed Jan 17, 02:29:00 PM 2007  
Blogger Kurt Strassner said...

Wade,

Three questions:

1. What if federal law tells us we have to ordain homosexuals, or stop preaching the gospel? Will I have to edit my interpretation of the Bible to please Washington?

I think that the federal law has nothing to do with this if we find that federal law contradicts Scripture.

2. Should seminary professors (those who train our pastors) be held to a different set of standards than pastors?

I think you are making a false distinction, there.

3. I am happy to disagree with your interpretation of 1 Timothy 2.12 ;). But I honestly could not tell what it was. All I saw was your paragraph on how "Some have interpretted" this passage (i.e. the Diana reference)...but no actually exegetical conclusions of your own...and no handling of the word "teach" which is exactly what the issue at hands has to do with.

So the third question: Can you spell out for us your philosphy of gender roles relative to 1 Timothy 2.12.

Wed Jan 17, 02:29:00 PM 2007  
Blogger Bill Scott said...

Wade,
These are disturbing happenings to say the least, although not entirely surprising. Gender discrimination such as you have detailed has the potential to lump us in with several other ultra conservative denominations.

I think that this will marginalize a large number of wonderful members of our denomination, both male and female. Is this healthy for our denomination? What does this communicate to the lost?

As far as the sniping goes...bad shooting. The round was blown off course by the hot air of the shooter. In fact, I was personally encouranged by this revelation. I respect what God has done with His ministry through you even more.

Blessing Brother.

Bill Scott

Wed Jan 17, 02:31:00 PM 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Although I don't particularly like Patterson's biblical interpretation regarding women in positions of authority my real concern is with his deceptiveness early on regarding that interpretation. Supposedly he assured the faculty that there was no problem with current faculty when, in fact in his view, there was a problem with Klouda. I'm not sure what ethic allows one to state a particular opinion when, in fact, holding an opinion totally opposed to that stated opinion. I know what we call it in Tennessee, but I won't say that here.

Tom

Wed Jan 17, 02:35:00 PM 2007  
Anonymous Bryan Riley said...

Thank you, Kurt, for pointing out the context mentioned in chapter 3. As you might imagine, I quickly looked through the book and scanned my memory banks to support my initial thought and what I wrote. This is an example where discussion and the evolution of comments on a blog is a positive thing. I am teachable (and able to be reminded of things I already know, too); however, part of the reason I was being cursory on that issue is because it isn't really the issue of this post.

MOreover, consistent with your interpretation, that only goes to prove its inapplicability to situations outside the church, such as a seminary (although that would not be my interpretation). At the same time, if one sees no separation or dichotomy of our worlds (as Christians we should live Kingdom principles in all of our lives, not dichotomize between religious and secular), then I'm not so sure it's sound biblically to make much of taking a principle and saying, this is to be followed inside a church building but not anywhere else.

Wed Jan 17, 02:37:00 PM 2007  
Anonymous Bryan Riley said...

Kurt, I will also say I appreciate your consistency (about not applying it differently to seminary profs and pastors) and I also expected you to ask Wade the questions you have asked about federal law and the law of Christ. They are good questions, and we may, as a church, have to deal with some of them in the future. May God give us grace and may more come to a saving knowledge of Him.

Wed Jan 17, 02:40:00 PM 2007  
Blogger Kurt Strassner said...

Bryan (wnd whomever else is listening),

I won't derail the post any further...unless Wade encourages us to do so!

But I would love for you to email me some cogent, biblical arguments for how 1 Timothy 2.12 might be interpretted NOT to mean that a woman is not permitted to teach a man.

That is all I have been seeking. You have given me Galatians 3 and 1 Timothy 1-2...and I have tried to demonstrate (from Paul's other writings) that those are not viable ways to get around 1 Tim. 2.12.

So let me hear from you. I am honestly glad to listen.

PS - see 1 Cor. 5.9-6.6 for a demonstration that there IS a difference in how we realte to the world, and how we function within the church.

Wed Jan 17, 02:42:00 PM 2007  
Blogger Wade Burleson said...

Tom,

An excellent point.

Wed Jan 17, 02:43:00 PM 2007