Sunday, March 11, 2007

A Call For Consistency

The issue of whether or not Dr. Sheri Klouda should have filed a cause of action against Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary for being removed from a tenure track position because she is a female has produced quite a discussion within the blog world. The reactions have varied from strong support for Klouda's decision to outright opposition. The differences of opinion within our convention over Sheri Klouda's decision to sue illustrates the diversity of views we have as Southern Baptists and the continuing importance of treating each other with respect.

Bart Barber, an adjunct faculty member of Southwestern has strongly criticized Dr. Klouda's decision to sue Southwestern by writing on his blog:

"I submit to you that, for a Christian, the costs of a lawsuit must be calculated using more than a financial ledger. There is the cost to our witness. There is the cost that any of us bear when we directly contradict God's word and disobey it (emphasis mine). Even assuming that the other person is 100% in the wrong...Vengeance is God's, not Judge Wapner's.

I have consistently maintained that Southern Baptists desire to unite around the essentials of the faith, but we are always hesitant to accept the declaration that others know what the 'will of God' is for our lives, particularly in those areas where Scripture is not clear and direct. The narrow interpretation that I Corinthians 6 is always, and for all time, forbidding any Christian from filing any suit against any other Christian or Christian insitution is very problematic.

The Problems With A Universal Prohibition Against Suits

There are several questions that need to be asked of those who seek to prohibit Christians from filing suit by declaring that action would be 'disobedience to the Word and will of God." What about other passages that indicate that secular 'authorities' are ordained by God to correct problems and punish wrongdoing? What about the view that I Corinthians 6 is dealing with specific problems and people within the 'local' church of Corinth only? What about the desire for some to 'hold accountable' those who file a cause of action, but refuse to confront those who violate their vows, break contracts, and refuse to let their 'yes' be 'yes?'

In addition, from the I Corinthians text itself, it seems that the only ones who have the right to castigate Dr. Klouda are those who have sought to help Dr. Klouda through her financial and emotional turmoil that has occurred because of the problems that have arisen with her removal from SWBTS. In any discussion of 1 Corinthians 6, one needs to remember that the Apostle Paul addressed a two-fold problem. One was concerning the church refusing to step in and help the people with the relational problems and the other was to the individuals who actually had the problem. In fact, it could be argued by that the greater weight of verses is upon the unwillingness church to help, [vs. 1-6] rather than the people who were actually experiencing the relationship problem [vs. 7-8] One could also argue that any criticism of Klouda is only valid if the person, or church, has been involved in helping resolve the difficult situation for the Kloudas and SWBTS. Otherwise, it might be that there is an ignoring of the first few verses of I Corinthians 6 in order to get to verses 7-8 which raises the proverbial 'plank in eye' and “casting the first stone” questions.

But the biggest problem I see in the arguments of those who wish to criticize and condemn Dr. Klouda is one of consistency. For a person to believe that no Christian, at any time, and for any reason, should file a lawsuit against another Christian or Christian insitution and castigate Dr. Klouda because of this belief, then to be consistent, that person should also condemn the following decisions of Christians to sue fellow Christians.

Tell Me, Please, What Say Ye About These?

(1). The Tennessee Baptist Convention sued Belmont University for breach of contract. Executive Director James Porch, speaking on behalf of the Executive Committee of the Tennessee Baptist Convention said the following:

"During 2005 Belmont University acted to terminate its affiliated relationship with the Tennessee Baptist Convention through a charter change. The Executive Board and TBC did not want to have to initiate litigation against Belmont and, to that end, tried for many months to persuade Belmont to honor the promise it made to Tennessee Baptists in 1951. By steadfastly refusing to acknowledge, much less honor, its promise to us, Belmont, not the Executive Board or the Belmont Study Committee, forced this matter into the courthouse."

I personally take Dr. Porch at his word. I also personally understand why the Tennessee Baptist Convention filed suit against Belmont, and have no problem with them doing so, believing that the courts have been established as a final authority for disputes over contracts, pledges and other legal matters.

For those who condemn Dr. Klouda for filing a cause of action against SWBTS, do you also condemn Dr. Porch and the Executive Committee of the Tennesse Baptist Convention?

(2). In 1969 a young teenage girl was sexually abused by a Southern Baptist minister. The minister's name was Tommy Gilmore and the young girl was Christa Brown. When Christa Brown broke down and told a staff member what was happening, Mr. Gilmore was confronted by a fellow staff member and told that if he didn't leave the church the matter would be brought to the attention of the entire church. Gilmore moved on to a larger church, with praise from the pulpit about being a man of God.

Mr. Gilmore eventually became associated pastor of First Baptist Church, Atlanta, Georgia where he was responsible for child care for 50,000 messengers that attended the 1986 SBC annual meeting in Atlanta. Christa Brown says she didn't understand the "soul-murdering impact" the episode had on her life until years later, when her own daughter turned the same age she was when her abuse occurred. What happened next is described in detail by Ethics Daily:

(Christa Brown) set out to discover if Gilmore was still a minister and to warn Baptist leaders about the possibility there was a child molester in their midst. Believing parents in churches where Gilmore had served over the years would want to know the information, she says, she contacted 18 Baptist leaders in churches, state conventions and the SBC. All responded by turning a "blind eye." Only after learning through her own efforts that Gilmore was working at a church in Florida and publicity about a 2005 lawsuit she filed against him in the Orlando Sentinel did Gilmore leave church work.

It seems that only the suit filed by Christa Brown ultimately brought about that which needed to be done - removal from the ministry of Tommy Gilmore - and Christa Brown should be given credit for potentially protecting our SBC children.

For those castigating Dr. Klouda for filing a cause of action against SWBTS do you also condemn the abused Christa Brown for filing a suit against her Christian pastor abuser and bringing about justice through the courts when nobody else responded to her concerns?

(3). The Missouri Baptist Convention filed suit against five Southern Baptist agencies in Missouri, their administrators and their trustees.

The Baptist Standard reported in December 2002:

The Missouri Baptist Convention has been wracked with turmoil over the last two years as fundamentalists led by layman Roger Moran launched a campaign to gain control of the convention, its executive board and the boards of its agencies. As that effort neared success, the state convention's executive director resigned and the five agencies amended their charters to avoid a hostile takeover of their boards. Those now in control of the convention also want control of the agencies and their estimated $200 million in assets.

The Missouri Baptist Convention's lead attorney is Michael Whitehead, former vice president and interim president of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kansas City, Mo., and former legal counsel for the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. Whitehead said. "The agencies have told themselves and they have told the world that the law is so clear that they are right, that it is beyond dispute. But today they must admit they were wrong. Their legal theory was not convincing enough to win these motions."

Here you have two groups of Christians, yes, even Baptists, that are in disagreement. The Missouri courts decided who was right and who was wrong in the preliminary motions linked to above.

For those who condemn Dr. Klouda for filing a cause of action against SWBTS do you also condemn the Missouri Baptist Convention, Michael Whitehead, Roger Moran, and others in Missouri for filing a cause of action against the Missouri Baptist Convention agencies?

(4). A Southern Baptist family lost their marine son in the war in Iraq. The members of Westboro Baptist Church picketed the funeral of the young marine, calling his death the judgment of God for America protecting 'fags.' The family of the marine filed a suit to protect other families from undergoing the emotional trauma of having their loved one's funeral picketed by the members of Westboro Baptist Church.

For those casitgating Dr. Klouda for filing a cause of action filed against SWBTS do you also condemn this Christian families lawsuit against Westboro Baptist Church?

(5). A Southern Baptist pastor and his wife filed suit against the Arizona Baptist Foundation in an attempt to regain the $100,000 they felt the ABF stole from them. Richard A. Kimsey, pastor of Desert Valley Baptist Church in the Phoenix area, filed a suit against the BFA after he and his wife, Ann, lost $100,000 they had invested with BFA from the sale of a home in Georgia following their move to Phoenix in March. In their suit, they contend BFA current and former officers took investment sales “pyramided into a Ponzi scheme in which the mountain of debt could be sustained only by selling new notes and persuading investors to roll old notes into new investment.”

This suit is one of only several dozen filed over the Ponzi scheme that eventually found executives of the BFA sent to prison.

For those castigating Dr. Klouda for filing a cause of action against SWBTS do you also condemn the suit of Pastor Richard Kimsey?

(6). The Arizona Baptist Convention participated in lawsuit filed by Southern Baptists against the now defunct Arthur Anderson accounting firm

The ABP reported on the class action lawsuit:

In a civil trial underway alleging that Andersen aided and abetted fraud by ignoring red flags and continuing to issue clean audits, a national accountant said Andersen failed to investigate signs the Foundation was in trouble between 1997 and 1998.

Dan Guy, a director of the American Society of Certified Accountants, accused Andersen of an "unpardonable" breach of accounting standards. A 1997 audit report of Foundation accounts "falls below the minimum accounting standards" and "should never have been released," he testified.

Guy, who studied Andersen case files in the audit, said an auditing team failed to investigate charges of financial misconduct, issuing a clean bill of health. At the least, he said, auditors should have tested the Foundation's ability to operate as a going concern, which likely would have disclosed its shaky finances.

He said Andersen missed red flags, including warnings by one of its own accountants, an anonymous call to its Chicago office and a series of investigative newspaper articles quoting former BFA employees.

About 40 spectators, mostly BFA investors, were turned away from the small courtroom April 30, the first full day of proceedings after jury selection, because there was no room to sit. Court officials set up a waiting area on Wednesday to admit spectators on a first-come basis.

Media covering the trial, which has drawn increased interest in light of similarities with allegations being made against Andersen in the Enron collapse, included the New York Times, Washington Post, Dow Jones and Bloomberg.


For those criticizing Dr. Klouda's cause of action against Southwestern Theological Seminary, do you also condemn this suit against Arthur Anderson? By the way, Arthur Anderson was founded by an evangelical Christian.

7). Dred Scott, a Christian African slave who lived in the United States filed a lawsuit in 1857 against other Christians who upheld the concept of slavery. Dred Scott filed suit twelve years after the formation of the Southern Baptist Convention. The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately handed down the landmark Dred Scott decision, ruling that the drafters of the Constitution had viewed all blacks as “beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”

The Dred Scott decision, which helped spur the Civil War, was eventually overturned by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution as blacks won the right to be counted as citizens and to benefit from the American judicial system. Was Dred Scott wrong in filing suit?

For those who condemn Dr. Klouda for filing a cause of action, do you also condemn Dred Scott's decision to file a lawsuit in an attempt to gain citizenship, a lawsuit which eventually led to the end of slavery in the United States?

Conclusion

I do not feel comfortable criticising those Christians cited above who decided to file lawsuits against fellow Christians. In most of the seven illustrations you have Southern Baptists filing suits against fellow Southern Baptists. My inclination is to believe that the suits were a the last resort in attempts to get people to keep their word, and to not break binding contracts, and I am in no position to say that any of the above Southern Baptists violated the 'will of God' or 'the Word of God.'

I call for those who wish to condemn Dr. Klouda to at least be consistent in their writings and posts and condemn the others I've mentioned as well. As for me, I will trust my brothers and sisters in Christ who feel led to involve the courts to hold others accountable to their word, and I shall refrain from issuing any condemnation.

In the end, justice will be served. That's why God ordains authority - to protect the righteous and punish the wrongdoer.

He has a way of insuring that happens.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

253 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 253 of 253
Anonymous said...

Please don't get me wrong. I hope this ends with Dr. Patterson (and the rest of his aristocrats) packing up and going home, wherever that is).

farmboy said...

"So, legally, that would bear upon this discussion in regard to Dr. Klouda suing SWBTS. But that still does not mean that filing a suit is her only course of action. And it surely does not mean that it is the best course of action for her. Don't get me wrong. I pray (I mean it) that she gets justice from SWBTS. But I also pray that the name of Christ not be blasphemed on account of her."

I agree on all counts. I am a Christian academic who teaches at a Christian college. I was on the deacon board during a time when our church considered renting a vacant parsonage. I was on the board of a Christian mission organization during the costly, multi-year process of receiving Section 501(c)(3) tax exempt status from the Internal Revenue Service. So, when it comes to the problems created by an expansive state, I am all to familiar.

Were it not for the expansive state, there would be no reason to consider the relevance of Acts 22-23 to the current situation.

Also, as an academic I enjoy pondering interesting problems. If nothing else, the current situation is certainly an interesting problem.

volfan007 said...

after all of this is over, then dr. patterson and the bot's at swbts need to make a policy. the policy should state that no woman should teach in classes where they would be teaching men the scripture. then, we'd have a policy, and it will be clear to everyone.

william,

i preached and taught on the role of the woman at my church before all of this about dr. klouda came out. i also preached and taught on the role of a man. i had women thank me for preaching it....in my present church, and in the church i was in before, and in all the churches i have pastored. in fact, some of them made statements, that in essence, said that they were glad that they had a pastor who didnt go along with all that women's lib beliefs. they were happy to be women.

david

peter lumpkins said...

William,

Thank you for your response. One thing I'd like to clear up, however. If I implied I was Pastor of my Church, I regret such. I definitively am not. TW is. I only attempt to be a good member.

Also, to my knowledge, there is no apparent cover-up to who we are.

And, one of the worship leaders is female. She even gets to exhort the congregation and pray!

As for my alledged evasivness, William, I can only say I surely am not incapable of such; though technically, I was not, in my mind committing evasion.

Rather, I was refusing to grant validity to an irrelevant point--moral inconsistency determining moral principle. Thus, I am not at all opposed, given such, to my own part in stalling the dialog with Wade as well.

Have a great evening. With that, I am...

Peter

peter lumpkins said...

Dear Stephen,

Your P.S. is well taken. Thank you.

I do not take lightly that my keystrokes here are, more times than not, dissent from prevailing thought.

But it must no less be said that, equally, more times than not, the prevailing view here which Wade unapologetically embraces, stands as much--if not more--out-of-step with where Southern Baptists are presently, than I do here on this blog. Wade himself is a bit of a dissenter, do you not agree?

And, though I'm quite sure to be surprising to many, I think Wade may be the most gracious bloghost in Baptist circles--especially when it comes to dissent. He and Dr. Ascol brightly shine in this area. Heck, I've been kicked off blogs for asking for a footnote!

That said, my Brother Stephen, know I am glad you are not the host of this blog, if you do not mind me saying.

As for my charge of "evasion" toward Wade and that it "indicates [I] believe [I} know his deepest thoughts and motives", in all respect, Stephen, reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of what evasion, the way I was using it, actually is.

To the contrary, evasion has nothing whatsoever to do with reading thoughts and motives. Rather, it is an informal logical fallacy. I suggest you take a peep at Wikipedia or a simple dictionary of informal fallacies.

Consequently, if Wade were to ban me for such a charge, it is his right. Yet, if the dirtiest, rudest, insulting charge ever made to Wade Burleson is that he committed evasion, I think the old boy just might make it after all.

Grace and good night Stephen. With that, I am...

Peter

wadeburleson.org said...

Peter,

I must say, your comment above makes the most sense to me of anything you have written today.

:)

Now, would you stop evading my question about the morality of the Tennessee Baptist Convention and Missouri Baptist Convention suing their Southern Baptist brothers and sisters in Christ for breach of contract?

Please.

Pretty please.

:)

Anonymous said...

Wade, if you want Peter to answer your question directly, why not answer mine? I know you say you have already answered it, but I don't see where. Will overlook my blindness to your answer and just answer directly in a new comment. The question is, "What is more important . . . the rights of Dr. Klouda, or the name of Christ?"

I'll be looking harder this time for your answer. Thank you.

wadeburleson.org said...

The name of Christ, of course.

I happen to believe the name of Christ is exalted when we heed Psalm 82.

2 "How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.

3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.

4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked

Anonymous said...

I don't know if this is pride or what, but I feel like my comments went straight into a void on this string.

I think it has been a good discussion, but I still think there could be better resolution than what has occurred.

Stephen, as always, you make good points.

Liam Madden said...

Dear Davidl,

I'm glad to see you haven't forgotten me. You might be surprised to find that I don't disagree with you. I bless those women and I'm glad that they support your church and you in ministry. I just think there needs to be freedom for those women to serve in leadership roles who feel a clear call from God to do so. Based on what I have seen, it appears that the Lord sometimes equips women to do certain jobs as well as or better than the menfolk. A good example is Dr. Klouda, who probably has more knowledge of Hebrew than the majority of pastors that don't see a problem with her being removed just because she is a woman. I respect and appreciate women who get joy by serving in supporting roles; I'm just saying that there ought to be freedom for those women who are called and exemplify leadership gifts to do what they are gifted to do and lead. That seems reasonable enough, don't you think?

Unknown said...

To various: Matt 18 is impossible to carry out without judging, as one's behavior is judged rightly against the standard of God's word. But if you want to argue that 1 Cor 6 principles are limited to members of one congregation (which is in itself problematic and absent of textual support), and that elders whould be the ones to judge, then why the outcry against Dr. Patterson? Why doesn't your principle of shut-up-unless-you-know-him apply to him as well? Further, if you support the right for alternate interpretations of 1 Cor 6, why not supporting the one that allows expressing the shame and defeat of any lawsuit between brothers?

Unknown said...

Sorry for the delay- I have been traveling across Texas today.


Wade: You gloss one main point, that when crimes are committed, the state brings the charge and prosecutes the criminal. In civil matters, the brother would be bringing the charge against the other brother, not the state. Law is law? The United States disagrees (and Paul and Peter grasp the distinction as well): there is civil law (v3) and criminal law (Romans 13:1ff and 1 Peter 2:13ff). The equal rights act stems from the Civil Rights Act. Grievances are not criminal, but civil.

Then this from you:
The I Corinthians 6 passage would deal with interpersonal relationships within the LOCAL church at Corinth.

Where do you get this? Not from the text. I will assume you don't mean the only local congregation this applies to is at Corinth, which is what you stated. If you want to claim the original audience is the only party receiving exhortation and admonishment, then that frees us up from many imperatives in many letters. Did the Holy Spirit intend this for all believers, as He did the entire canon of Scripture?

But you also make some leaps of interpretation that I am not following. How did you deal with the argument being based in the fact that the saints judge the world, and the transition to "you" (the Corinthians) being those saints in verse 3? If this was binding only on the local church, is the local church the only ones that will be judging the world and angels? Further, how did you deal with the word "brothers" in verse 8? Was Paul only concerned with the brothers of the local congregation here, and how do you argue that this term no longer applies to the brotherhood of the saints? Further, how have you come to the conclusion based on your exegetical work that the word "church" in verse 4 refers only to a single church of which the grieving brothers are apart? It is interesting to note here that BDAG has this instance of ecclesia defined as "the global community of Christians, (universal church)." This seems to be quite a difficult reconciliation with the interpretation that this admonishment is intended for local congregations.

God is glorified when we obey Him. He is not glorified through our actions when we attempt to achieve noble ends by ignoble means, but depsite them. Judgment is still rendered, and the church is still defamed.

I do not understand why you think one has to be held to account. Why must one be held to account?

I am not afraid to trumpet loudly what the Bible trumpets loudly. I am not afraid to follow Paul in saying lawsuits between believers should be viewed as a shame and a defeat. There should be no boasting in them, nor in their results. You can apply that to any case you have come up with, and the big ones yet to come.

Anonymous said...

Everyone now understands the effect of the trial lawyers and their frivolous law suits on the American economy. Millions of Americans have lost their jobs because of these meritless law suits brought for self-enrichment by ambulance chasing attorneys with claims of junk science.

To keep our nation and economy strong, we as a people must follow leaders and thinkers like Rush Limbaugh and Shan Hannity and say no to frivolous litigation and junk science.

We must likewise say no to liberal judges and work for their replacement by responsible strict constructionist conservatives who will follow the law, instead of their political views, and reverse Roe v. Wade.

It is the trial lawyers and their unlimited millions who, along with the unions, finance the liberal Democrats and their attacks on American values and who call for surrender in the war against the people who attacked us in 9/11.

These are the people who have brought us gay marriage.

These are the people who finance Hillary.

Klouda, by hiring a trial lawyer and filing a suit, has now showed us her true colors, and we know where she stands. Instead of getting behind President Bush in our war on terror, she found herself a trial lawyer and joined the lottery.

She doesn't understand what these frivolous suits are doing to our country and economy.

Hopefully, some responsible judges will throw this suit out quickly as unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

Thank goodness we have Paige Patterson to ke a stand for the traditional values that made this country what it is and who supports Isreal and our President. There is hope yet left here.

While the liberals attack him, we should all behind and support him.

Anonymous said...

Colin is right. There must be another way for Dr. Klouda's "friends" to help her get justice. If I were her friend (I do not know her personally), then I would counsel her according to the scriptures. I would think that a friend would be more concerned with her spiritual well fare than her current situation (not to exclude concern for her and her family in an economic crisis). By all means help her. But can't there be something else done to keep this out of court. If there is no one to go to in all of the SBC regarding this then the SBC is irrelevant, and maybe I should be a Presbyterian.

Good word, Collin.

Anonymous said...

Annonymous,

Who are you? Do you even know Paige Patterson? It is obvious that you do not, or you are just a bad as he is. And what on earth does the Klouda case have to do with George Bush and the War?

Anonymous said...

A good thing about these long strings is that real people with their bright colors glaring for all the world to read begin to come out from behind the quick and usually intelligent comments that accompany a less comment filled string.

With the last two ridiculous anony comments, I am thinking that the "anony" is in fact Colin himself.

Peter, I have read your comments for a long time and I must confess that I am growing weary of a type of "condescension" when you type. I don't know...it's kind of hard to explain...condescension may not even be the right word. Let me just say it seems like it's easy to see through you, when with others it may be more difficult. No...that's confusing also. Forget it.

Regardless, whatever it is, for some reason it is wearing thin with me.

To prove my uncanning ability to know and predict human behavior- :) -your reply to this comment will start with some sort of strange sounding "compliment" to me in some way...then it will move to an ambiguous "apology" of some sort (which will really be nothing more than you saying you are sorry that I am so stupid I can't understand what you are saying)...and then you will move on to writing 3 paragraphs of why you said or did what you said or did that will only go to confuse me even more.

I just reread the previous paragraph and I think I pegged it.

Having said that...please change nothing. Write nothing. And sleep well tonight. I'm just a little old anonymous blog reader who rarely comments.

I would say I would quit reading Wade's blog, but I just can't. Either the post or the comment string reels me in everytime.

With that...
You will still be Peter, I'm sure.

Liam Madden said...

Colin,

If you think these lawsuits are a shame and a defeat, since I think you are located close to the other parties concerned, why don't you walk over to Dr. Patterson's office and ask him to give Dr. Klouda her job back?

Rob Ayers said...

Chris Gates,

While SWBTS may not recieve federal funds directly, they do recieve federal funding through students who, as veterans, recieve financial assistance through the GI Bill. I know this because I funded three degrees at SBC seminaries through my GI Bill.

Rob

wadeburleson.org said...

William Madden,

A wonderful solution.

I can promise you everything would be dropped if that were to occur.

Everything.

Of course, that won't happen because of a narrow belief that a woman should not 'teach' a man in an academic setting, particularly any man that is becoming 'a pastor.'

Where is our convention policy on this one, or is it, like other things, a narrowing of ideology in our convention by a handful in charge.

wadeburleson.org said...

Colin,

You, like others, make your claims against Klouda and are dead silent about the Tennessee Baptist Convention suing Southern Baptists, the Missiouri Baptist Convention suing Southern Baptists, Southern Baptists in Arizona suing Southern Baptists, etc . . .

In at least two of the above illustrations the STATE would never prosecute. The TBC and MBC sued for 'breach of contract,' and 'fraud:' two of the very phrases used in Dr. Klouda's contract.

Are you condemning TBC and MBC? Are you casitigating the Executive Committees' of both states for their decisions, as well as the Ex. Directors?

I'm not.

I personally believe they tried everything they could to get the people to keep their word, fulfill their contracts, etc . . . and when they could not get the Southern Baptists in question to listen, they took them to court.

Once again, for the upteenth million time with no answer given as of yet:

WERE THESE TENNESSEE AND MISSOURI SOUTHERN BAPTISTS SINNING AGAINST GOD WHEN THEY FILED SUIT?

If you believe they were, please show me the letters you have written, the public stand you have taken and the chastisement you have issued because of their actions.

I don't think you can, can you? You haven't.

Which leads me to ask. Do you work for SWBTS? Do you attend school at SWBTS?

I shall remain consistent. I believe that members of the 'local' church who have problems should have church members and pastors assist them in working through those relational problems, but the I Corinthians 6 text DOES NOT FORBID the taking of a Christian to court at all times and for any reason.

Courts are the higher authority for issues that cannot be resolved through the LOCAL church.

wadeburleson.org said...

One final thing Colin.

I am thrilled with your exegetical word study for ecclesia as 'the universal church.' Some of your friends have emphatically stated that the word ONLY means the local, organized church.

I very well may accept your 'ecclesia' definition in this text. If I do, it still does not negate my belief that where breaches of law have occurred, the courts are ordained by God for appeal, resolution, and justice.

Just as Paul appealed to Rome, Christians may appeal to the state when issues CANNOT or WILL NOT be resolved in the 'ecclesia.'

I like the word.

:)

Anonymous said...

I am a lurker through all of this discussion and wish to input my "two cents" worth at this point.

I am a Southern Baptist (by choice, not by birth) woman; I am definitely not a feminist. I would not sit under a female pastor, because I do believe that Scripture prohibits a woman in that position. But past that, I'm a little tired of hearing from all of you men who seem to be (to me) so smug in your maleness.

SWBTS apparently thought it was appropriate to allow Dr. Klouda to earn her doctorate at their institution in this area of Biblical language. What did they expect a woman would do with that degree? What instances would you cite - and I'm not implying that you can't, I'm implying that I don't know - where a woman would be able to earn a living using this degree and not violate Scripture as you understand it?

To equate the faculty position of teaching the Hebrew (that's mostly Old Testament, is it not?) language with the position of pastor is such a stretch. Dr. Klouda apparently was not teaching pastoral candidates Hermeneutics, pastoral counseling or any of the
"-ologies" - she was teaching a foreign language. Would she have to use the Bible to do that? Certainly. Does that mean she was "teaching" the Bible or how to be a pastor? Not so certainly, I would think.

If this was such a terrible situation that she needed to be removed, then why has not SWBTS rescinded the degrees of all the graduates who took Hebrew under Dr. Klouda, since the very fact that she was a woman teaching men invalidates the class? I'm dead serious about this; this would show consistency.

Does it not occur to anyone that God - knowing that Dr. Patterson, with his "well known views on woman" would be coming on as President of SWBTS - allowed Dr. Klouda to be hired by SWBTS prior to Dr. Patterson coming on in order to get Dr. Patterson's attention on this matter? Do you honestly believe that the most important lesson here was to save pastoral candidates from the taint of a female instructor? Could the lesson possibly have been something else? Do you really believe that Dr. Patterson and all those who think that Dr. Klouda teaching the Hebrew language to men was wrong will someday stand before the Lord and hear "Well done, thou good and faithful servant, you got that woman out of My seminary ... I am so pleased with you." Or might He have a few words to say about this treatment of a sister in the Lord.

hopelesslyhuman said...

Wade,

Would you consider adding a "No Spin Zone" rule where posters can't post again until they provide a definitive answer to a simple question from the blog host that gets at the main point of the post?

Until then, we're left to wade through the voluminous ruminations of those who continue to attempt to hijack the blog...

wadeburleson.org said...

Mike,

Please send your contribution to

Emmanuel Baptist Church
2505 W. Garriott
Enid, Oklahoma 73703

For: Sheri Klouda Fund

Until you do, your words are empty and hollow.

Anonymous said...

For John, and Wade (our gracious host),

I do not feel that it is necessary to spell out "my" doctrine of scriputure. I am assuming we all believe the Bible is true, and that it is the only rule of faith. Now, I know that entails our being able to understand and properly interpret it, but it seems like some want to make it harder to interpret than it actually is. Wade, that is why I made the very "Pattersonian" comment about you and Brian McLaren (which I now regret and apologize for).

Wade, I agree with you, that the court is indeed a higher authority on matters where the church can not make a ruling. The question is, "Is the Klouda case one of them?" It may be. But even if it is, that still doesn't mean that Dr. Klouda has no other option than to sue. And it doesn't mean it is the best option for her.

I believe I answered your question earlier in this string about the other conventions and their suits. I said that they were wrong in suing other Southern Baptists in a secular court. However, having given the matter further thought, and in light of your comments on the subject, I feel I must now revise my statement.

I have long suspected that Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary has ceased long ago to be a place dedicated solely to educating pastors for the work of their ministry (like their mission statement reads). While I was there (recently) I got the impression that is was not really any different than any other university that just happened to have Baptist in the name. Or for that matter, not unlike every other university in the country (Harvard, Yale), with the exception that they are not nearly as committed to academic excellence (in general) as those secular universities.

My point is this. When an SBC entity ceases to function according to the standard set the the SBC (BFM 2000, the Bible, Christian charity, etc.), then it may become a different thing to sue them at court than it is to sue a "real" brother. I will leave myself open to the idea that this may be the case in the Klouda vs. SWBTS situation. It may be perfectly justifiable for her to sue, but that still does not mean that it is best. I want Dr. Klouda to get justice. And I will make my own contribution to "the Klouda fund." I just think that it could be handled better. That is all.

Anonymous said...

Wade,

I do not know the intimate details of the Tenn. or Missouri suits, so I would not be able to really make a just assessment. Earlier I was simply thinking about it in general terms of brother suing brother according to 1 Cor. 6.

Unknown said...

My letters? Right next to all your blog posts and letters extolling the virtue of those lawsuits and the defense of those suing the day they were filed.


I was crystal clear in my posts about the lawsuits you mentioned.


What is with the rhetoric about me being a student at SWBTS?:

Which leads me to ask. Do you work for SWBTS? Do you attend school at SWBTS?

Wade, you have known this. Why ask?



By the way, Sola Scriptura can be our guide in discerning the apparent contradiction you try to draw when speaking of Paul appealing to Caesar- Paul was addressing a grievance he had with the state. This leads us to believe that utilizing the court system is not wrong, and likely neither are lawsuits with unbelievers (though I have not yet done this study). But what if, you may ask, we want to utilize the court system against our brothers in Christ? Then Sola Scriptura says!: go to 1 Cor 6 to see it is a shame, presumptious, and already a defeat. If a defeat then, you will be gaining nothing in its pursuit.


In the most recent comment string, you say:
I think the Spirit of God does a good enough job of maturing His people. 'Safeguards' end up being man-made rules that divide.
Freedom of conscience, autonomy, liberty and a high view of Scripture's authority and sufficiency are enough for this Baptist.


Almost enough, right. You forgot to add lawsuits in there, and the Spirit's insufficiency in dealing with problems between believers. But, what would we do without the man-made safeguard of lawsuits to keep our brothers accountable?

Thanks for the dialogue. I am still praying for you and your family.


p.s. Anony, I am truly flattered that you would consider me in your tirade. But, sorry, all of my comments are signed with my name.

peter lumpkins said...

Dear Anonymous,

I trust your day has developed to your satisfaction. Though I rarely respond to anons, with you, I make exception. And I trust you do not mind.

First, as for your critique of my comments, I can only say, "Thank you very much." As for your weariness in reading them, I am sorry to say, I can say even less: stop.

Grace from our Lord. With that, I am...

Peter

Anonymous said...

In reply to Anonymous, One Chris Gates said...


Who are you? Do you even know Paige Patterson? It is obvious that you do not, or you are just a bad as he is. And what on earth does the Klouda case have to do with George Bush and the War?


The last question merits an answer.

Klouda says in her suit that you, PP and Southwestern, fired me because of my gender. That's unlawful and I want damages from you for your acting unlawfully.

In response, PP and Southwestern say, no, we did not fire you because of your gender. Rather, I understand they will say, we did not grant you tenure because of other reasons. Your gender was a coincidental factor, not the cause of anything that we did.

More specifically, I expect that Page will say, in essence, for himself and Southwestern, though not in exact terms, the following.

I suspected and feared that Klouda was a closet liberal. I was not sure that she was a true conservative, committed to fighting the liberals and advancing the American values of Ronald Reagan. Responsible conservatism lies at the core of Southwestern. I worried that, once she got tenure, such liberal tendencies would come out and not advance the interests of the institution. I had no confidence of mind that in the long run she would uphold and advance the core values of Southwestern. In my judgment giving her a life time contract did not best serve and represented a significant risk for the long run interests of Southwestern.


In the suit the school will make a motion for summary judgment, and say they held an honest belief that she was a closet liberal.

By filing suit, Klouda has made a political statement. She has aligned herself with the trial lawyers and all the causes they finance. These include opposition to President Bush and defending America against the terrorists who after 9/11 seek to finish America off. This very weekend the liberals, with the help of trial lawyer contributions, are organizing marches in the street to disrupt traffic and honest people all over America to oppose President Bush and support Osama Ben Ladden. We all know one of the trial lawyers' favorite causes: Hillary.

By filing suit with a trial lawyer and making a political statement, Klouda has verified that PP and Southwestern's fears and concerns that she was not a true conservative were not only honestly held but correctly held. She has come out of the closet.


I hear people asking if Klouda has come out of the closet on Hillary too.

PP and Southwestern will argue for summary judgment against here because a correctly held and honest belief in a valid grounds for a job action, not holding in the long run fundamental values of the institution, defeats, without trial, her claim of gender discrimination. A honest Republican judge throw the case out immediately.

Discussion about filing or not filing suits must recognize that in this particular case, we dealing with frivolous litigation that lacks merit and congests the courts when they should be going after the criminals and terrorists. It is not necessary to reach the scriptural issue of filing suits here.

N.C. said...

The argument that the lawsuit is damaging to our witness is a bunch of hooey. The firings were damaging to our witness. I am glad Klouda, in her quiet way, is not laying down. And i won't be sad if the decision goes against SWBTS. I hope it does and I hope it hurts.
People can't be allowed the courage of their convictions without having to face the cost of their sin. She was mishandled and then misled. She deserves a big chunk of change and a public apology. Some heads should roll too, jobs should be lost.
How else will people learn if there are not consequences?

Bart Barber said...

Bro. Burleson,

My apologies for being so late to comment. Wi-Fi was not on the list of amenities in our makeshift acommodations in Port Arthur. I would like to take the liberty of mentioning to all the ministry of Nehemiah's Vision, a group in the area affected by Hurricane Rita that is doing exemplary work in ministering to the affected communities. You would do well to consider encouraging your church to become involved.

I must admit that I was frustrated upon first reading your post, believing that it portrayed me as having refused to answer questions that I had, indeed, already answered. Upon further inspection, I realize that, although I did directly address the question that you are posing, my comments on that question were more in the manner of an indirect reference to an earlier comment stream than in the manner of a direct answer. So, I have answered these questions already, but unless you have been following my blog pretty carefully, you might not know that.

Stated as clearly as I know how to put it: I Corinthians 6 plainly prohibits a Christian bringing suit in a secular court against a non-Christian. It does not prohibit the magistrate from bringing a criminal case against a Christian.

Regarding your first case, although I would love to see Belmont lose, I do not condone the lawsuit. (I add, ironically, that the lawsuit might be appropriate in a few years, at which point Belmont will probably not in any realistic measure be a Christian institution...a little much-needed levity here)

Regarding case #2, such things are criminal matters and should be prosecuted as such. I note that your quote highlights the publicity rather than the lawsuit itself as a motivating factor. Frankly, in the aftermath of the Michael Jackson cases, I think that lawsuits often damage the campaign to bring such offenders to justice, opening accusers up to the charge of being motivated by a desire to receive a large financial settlement. It seems to me a better strategy to press criminal charges, publicize the offense, and hound the offender until he winds up out of the ministry and in jail. Although neither my feelings nor yours about this subject should veto the scriptures, I commend Christa Brown for the courage she showed in pursuing this predator to the end.

Regarding the MBC lawsuit, I am already on record in a back-and-forth comment exchange with Art Rogers at my site in disagreeing with this lawsuit.

Regarding the thugs at Westboro, yes, I disagree with the lawsuit.

Regarding the Arizona Bapist Foundation, yes, I disagree with the lawsuit.

Regarding Arthur Andersen (please note the 'e' in the final syllable), I think it was fine to pursue this lawsuit. Arthur Andersen's status with the Lord, whatever it was, does not make the corporation he founded "Christian" any more than my parents' salvation makes me one.

Regarding the famous Dred Scott case, I don't really know whether John Emerson was a Christian. If he was, I disagree with the suit. If not, the suit does not violate I Corinthians 6. Although I recognize the historical significance of Dred Scott v. Sandford, surely you are not suggesting that emancipation would not have taken place but for the Dred Scott decision? I could not discount the tireless biblical labor of people like Harriet Beecher Stowe and other Christian abolitionists who brought the issue to the forefront of public thinking.

I condemn none of these people, nor do I condemn Dr. Klouda. Rather, I hope to employ God's Word "for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness." If we will cultivate an atmosphere where we relegate the teaching of the scriptures to "personal conviction" and are willing to equivocate as to their meaning when they makes us uncomfortable, then 2 Timothy 3:16 will die the same death right along with 1 Corinthians 6:1-6.

In another context the ever-eloquent Jeff Richard Young observed that the crux of this disagreement is whether Dr. Patterson promised tenure review and further employment to Dr. Klouda. I agree. In January I stated that Dr. Patterson was wrong if he had made this promise to Dr. Klouda and had then broken his word. At this point, all we have are one-sided allegations that this is the case. But if it is substantiated that Dr. Patterson did indeed behave in this manner, then I am already on record saying that he was wrong to do so.

On the other hand, Dr. Klouda's filing of a lawsuit is a matter of public record. The text of 1 Corinthians is a matter of public record. Peter's earlier point about Dr. Voluminous and others is well-taken, and he reminds us that the overwhelming number of Christian commentators have faced very little struggle in perceiving the clear implications of a well-written passage of scripture from the hand of the Apostle Paul. Not only are Dr. Klouda's actions and the text of the Bible a matter of public record, so is the testimony of a whole host of Christians who have gone before us.

This lawsuit is a violation of 1 Corinthians 6:1-6.

Bart Barber said...

I clarify, the phrase "motivating factor" above means that the negative publicity was what motivated the pastor to leave the ministry.

Anonymous said...

Help me out everyone,

I am trying to ignore the comments of "annonymous," but I have to ask, "Are we talking about American National Politics, or are we talking about a situation within SBC life? Just curious . . . Please don't respond to this . . . its not worth the effort :)

wadeburleson.org said...

Bart,

Thanks for your answers.

I do consider them consistent with your view of I Corinthians 6 and appreciate the time you took in answering my questions.

I am grateful for your mission work and appreciate you spirit and heart.

Now, this question. Will you be as aggressive in challenging Baptist leadership in the various states who have filed suits against fellow Southern Baptists as you are Dr. Kluoda?

I will not, since my views on their actions are consistent with my views on I Cor. 6.

Blessings,

Wade

Bart Barber said...

Bro. Burleson,

You asked, "Will you be as aggressive in challenging Baptist leadership in the various states who have filed suits against fellow Southern Baptists as you are Dr. Kluoda?"

I answer: I suppose I already have. The only thing I have done regarding the Klouda case is to post on the Internet my disagreement with her decision. I have now in this thread done the same regarding each of these cases that you have mentioned.

Anonymous said...

In reply to Anonymous, Chris Gates said...

Help me out everyone,

I am trying to ignore the comments of "anonymous," but I have to ask, "Are we
talking about American National Politics, or are we talking about a situation within
SBC life?

When Southwestern denied tenure, this matter started as a "situation within SBC
life."

But when Elouda filed her suit in a United States District Court and associated with
a trial lawyer, she bought a ticket in the lawsuit lottery, a matter very much at the
center of American national politics today.

Everyone seems to ignore the bottom line of this analysis: this debate, all 250
comments, is totally unnecessary. If we apply first non-secular legal analysis, we
quickly see that this is a frivolous law suit that the system should quickly end and
get PP and Southwestern back to their important work.

We do not need theological analysis to resolve this situation. Non-secular principles
work well here. Where we can resolve a situation without resolving problematic
theological questions, we should turn our analysis on situations where it does matter.

Bart Barber said...

Ben Arbour,

I think you have misread me. Where have I stated that this principle applies to Christians suing lost people? I think I have explicitly stated that it does not apply in such circumstances (regarding Arthur Andersen & regarding Dred Scott).

Anonymous said...

Mike,

One more time, that address is:

Emmanuel Baptist Church
2505 W. Garriott
Enid, Oklahoma 73703

For: Sheri Klouda Fund

Time to put your money where your mouth is.

Steve

volfan007 said...

i voted for the tbc v. belmont u.court case in tn. i dont consider belmont to be a christian university anymore, no more than middle tn state or vandy are christian universities. so, all of us in tn are trying to keep belmont u. in the tbc and turn it back into a christian university...as well as a baptist university. or, the powers that be at belmont u. can pay the tbc for our losses. also, in this situation tbc officials tried thier best to work this out with belmont out of court, but belmont would not bend, and many times would not even show up for meetings.

i dont know anything about the missouri baptist situation.

and, i wish that swbts would have bought dr. klouda'a house and given her a months salary, or something...due to the situation. but, i still agree with dr. patterson's view on women not teaching men the bible in a public setting as the authority in the room, and i hope that they will make it a policy after this is all over.

char, i hope the coffee wasnt too hot.:) you know, some have sued over spilling coffee in thier lap as well. was it mcdonalds coffee?:)

and, i still say that its sad....very sad....that cp dollars are being spent and wasted on the klouda lawsuit and the tbc lawsuit and the mbc lawsuits. its sad. and, its even sadder that these things could not have been worked out before going to court. that may be the saddest thing of all of these situations.

david

Anonymous said...

Bart Barber,

You said earlier in this post:

"I Corinthians 6 plainly prohibits a Christian bringing suit in a secular court against a non-Christian."

And it was in bold, so it should be easy for you to find up there.

Perhaps it is a misprint, but this is cyber-space, and we have no way of knowing.

wadeburleson.org said...

Volfann,

Using your logic, then all Sheri Klouda would have to do is profess she does not believe the people against whom she filed suit are Christians.

To me, that's silly.

The people at Belmont aren't Christians?

Are you serious?

Anonymous said...

Volfan - Please stop commenting! I can't take it anymore!

Everyone please trust that this comment is not a reflection of the real me. I simply can't help myself. I have to get this off my chest.

Volfan, your comments are ALWAYS mind numbingly repetitious which wouldn't be so bad...except that they are WRONG! (Note: This is not my opinion, but a fact as documented by so many of your comments that are ridiculously easy to refute with scripture.)

Let it be known that I sincerely try to pass over your comments, but like a good candy bar, I just have to "take a bite", even though it will be bad for me. I hate that about me.

What's more is that you spell incorrectly consistently showing that it is not a "keyboard error" (which we all make) but a reflection of your inability to spell very easy words correctly. Sir, please listen! "I" before "E" except after "C"..."I" before "E" except after "C"! While this rule is not always true, this is easy enough to learn and it will help you spell easy words correctly...at least occasionally. Make that quip a song and sing it to yourself when in doubt.

Also, the second declination of "sad" would be "more sad" and not "sadder". That one is free also.

Seriously though, your inability to use capitals is telling in several ways. The most important would be the lack of attention you give to detail. Frankly, this "laziness" lends itself to issues such as how, or even when, you study scripture. Of course, this would explain your weak theology.

I also must say that it is very difficult to give any weight whatsoever to your theological views under these conditions.

On another note regarding the McD's coffee' you referenced, what did you think Char was referring to when he (or she) said that about spilling the coffee' and then suing? BINGO!

Oh brother!

Is your hair blonde?

Wade - I'm sorry! Remove at will and I understand. Again, my deepest apology, but I do feel better. I am sure I will take some harsh comments from others for saying some of this as I am harsh in some things I said, but everyone who reads Volfan's comments are thinking the same thing I am. I have just decided to be the guinea pig and vent for all of us. I am now ready for my medicine. But like I said, I am feeling better.

Anonymous said...

Wade,

It seems to me that this comment string has now degenerated somewhat from your intended goal in posting this. I will comment no more on this. I have nothing but the utmost respect for you (even though we may somewhat disagree on a few things), and I applaud you for helping Dr. Klouda and for making her case more public. It should be, at least in the realm of the SBC. As far as the suit and 1 Cor. is concerned, I am not so sure that I wholeheartedly disagree with Klouda's actions anymore. I still don't think that it is best, but it may indeed be justifiable. It seems that by virtue of SWBTS being the type of institution that it is they have opened themselves up to this possibility. That is why they have attorneys on the payroll. I think about what I would do if I were wronged financially while working for Southwestern (I worked for SWBTS for 4 years). Perhaps I could imagine a case where I would have no recourse but to take them to court (like taking someone's insurance company to court if they refused to pay for damages done to me in an accident). I am sure there are details about this situation that I am not privy to, and some of which may never come out. I only hope and pray that Dr. Klouda has a clean conscience (and maintains one in the future) regarding her [no doubt] prayerful decision to sue. And I also pray that justice be done, and that the name of Christ is not mocked by the media because of this. For me, the principle of "rather suffer wrong" still seems simple, but I am willing to admit that you could be right. Thank you for your posts in regard to Dr. Klouda. I just hope that someone in the SBC will make enough of a fuss about this situation so as to cause the convention to make a change in leadership, or at least in policies regarding the level of power that a Seminary president and its trustees have in matters such as these.

Soli Deo Gloria!

volfan007 said...

wade,

i think belmont u. stopped being a truly christian university a long time ago.

also, wade, right now...unless someone can show me different... i believe that when a person goes thru the reconciliation process that's taught in scripture, and the person refuses to make things right. then, a christian is free to sue someone that the church looks upon as an unbeliever. if you have gone to the supposed christian person who has offended you, and they refused to make it right. and then, you take back witnesses with you to work it out, and they refuse to make it right. and, then, you take it to the church, and the church encourages the offender to make it right, and they refuse. well, the church should look upon them as a lost person, right? is that not what the scripture teaches in matthew 18? and, the bible does not prohibit a christian taking a lost man to court....does it?

so, why is this silly?

also, i didnt say that all dr. klouda had to do was declare swbts to not be a christian organization. those were your words. i believe in the reconciliation process that we are taught by Jesus.

david

volfan007 said...

anonymous,

your words would mean more if you would tell me who you are. at least, that's what i was told for a long time.

also, anon, i'm not blonde. i guess i'm just that dumb. sorry bout that!

also, thanks for the english lesson. i needed it.

anon, everything i do...everything about my life...i try to live by the scriptures. i try to always make sure that my life is line with the bible. too many times, i fail to live up to the bible, but the Lord is gracious. and, i believe that i have learned the bible pretty well...not as good as i want to know it.....but, i have grown up listening to it taught and preached, and have read the bible strait thru 13 times. i have an m.div. degree. i have studied the bible for thousands of hours on sermons and lessons, and in devotional times.

bro., i may not do english like you like. and, i may not type like you like it. but, you cant say that i dont know the bible, cuz i do. i want to know it better...yes, sir. i do. but, i do know it.

now, you might not agree with some of my views and personal convictions about it...fine. lets talk about it. that is, if you could look down from your lofty height to discuss the bible with a lowly hillbilly like me.

i love ya, bro. or sister, or whoever you are,

david

Bart Barber said...

Brian Arbour,

Well, I guess that's why we all benefit from editors.

The "non-" is misplaced. My bad. Thanks for helping me to catch and correct it.

wadeburleson.org said...

Mike,

Just returned from my funeral.

I promise you that I have sought to contact the people who can reconcile this situation.

I promise you further that if they make an equitable offer to Dr. Klouda (purchase her home to relieve the family burden, and give her appropriate severance/and or offer her job back) I will do everything within my power to convince Dr. Klouda that the suit should be dropped. Personally, I'm not sure that it is all financial for Dr. Klouda. It may be her belief that the view of women at SWBTS is schewed from the Biblical teaching about women and it may be her desire to prove that SWBTS cannot claim the majority of Baptists believe a woman cannot teach Hebrew.

Nevertheless, your point is well taken. I believe there should be reconciliation and will do anything to help, but it takes two sides to be willing.

farmboy said...

"i voted for the tbc v. belmont u.court case in tn. i dont consider belmont to be a christian university anymore"

"i think belmont u. stopped being a truly christian university a long time ago."

Based on the above is the Southern Baptist Convention still truly a Christian organization? Compare the membership and attendance figures of a representative Southern Baptist church. As Tom Ascol has demonstrated on the Founder's Ministries weblog, unfortunately, average attendance is well below membership. All too often the ratio of average attendance to membership is less than 50%. In too many cases this ratio is in the neighborhood of 25 to 30%.

Can a church where less than half - and in some cases only one-fourth - of its members attend the Sunday morning worship service still be considered a Christian organization? If the logic applies to Belmont University, shouldn't it apply to the Southern Baptist Convention and its constituent churches? If the logic applies to the Southern Baptist convention shouldn't it apply to Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary?

Last year the Southern Baptist Convention had the opportunity to consider and adopt a resolution relating to regenerate church membership. However, this resolution was obviously not as important as a resolution on abstaining from the consumption of alcoholic beverages.

volfan007 said...

farmboy,

i am talking more about doctrine and purpose of the school more than i am about how many people are christians or not.

farmboy said...

"i am talking more about doctrine and purpose of the school more than i am about how many people are christians or not."

But, as the percentage of people in any organization who are Christians (as defined by the doctrines contained in the Bible, God's inspired, inerrant word) increases, shouldn't it follow that the doctrines (i.e. teachings and beliefs) and purpose of the institution would more closely align with the teachings of the Bible? Right doctrines should lead to right practices, and Christians should look to the Bible for their doctrines.

I know little of Belmont University. However, as a result of job related moves, my wife, son and I have had the opportunity to visit way too many Southern Baptist churches. On too many occasions a particular church we visited turned out to be closer to a social club than a Bible based church.

If lawsuits against Christians or Christian organizations are categorically prohibited by the doctrines of the Bible, but lawsuits against non-Christians or non-Christian organizations are allowed, then the point at which a person or organization crosses the Christian, non-Christian threshold is critical. Who wants to be in the position of making that determination?

peter lumpkins said...

Dear Ben,

I do not know if you will read this or not since we've pretty much shifted pastures, but here goes: thank you, Ben. I percieve now at least one sheep got the ethical point I miserably failed to communicate to the 99. "All hope that we would be saved was lost":)

Also, it seems to come thru the posts I've written--or rather the responses to my posts--that somewhere I've condemned Dr. Klouda for her suit. I have not; I have, at most, questioned it, and that based upon a thorough consensus of NT scholarship on the passage under consideration.

It blew by us like a whirlwind that an exegete as capable as is Wade not once cited scholarly evidence for his position that Paul was unclear in what he meant. I find that fantastic and not a little funny.

My major focus, at least in my mind, has been to target the Inspired Apostle's opinion of lawsuits between believers as expressed in 1 Cor. 6.1-8 and question those who, like Wade, somehow come to the strange conclusion that Paul was fuzzy in 1 Cor. 6 about lawsuits. Incidently, the student Colin masterfully refuted the experienced Pastor Wade's fuzziness theory, if I may be so blunt. His string of exegetical challenges were wisely and largely avoided.

Furthermore, as I've explained in a comment thread on my site, neither have I condemned the conventions because, even more than the Klouda scenario (I've actually read the lawsuit on her's), I know far too little about it.

While the Apostle was clear about lawsuits pertianing to believer vs. believer, that does not necessarily mean that we can jump to the conclusion that the principle also applies to agency/entity vs. agency/entity.

Now I'm quite sure some will view that in me as an inconsistency on my part (which, by the way, unlike Wade's concern, WOULD NOT BE AN AD HOMINEN ARGUMENT)--a perfectly legitmate concern to raise. Fine. Perhaps it is and I need to reassess it, which I am perfectly willing to do.

Rather I see it not as an inconsistency but as a moral caution. That is, what Paul said to individual Christians may not immediately apply to formal orgainzations/corporations/agenices, etc of Christians. Too much, I think we glibly convolute moral principles of Scripture.

The simple point is, from Paul's standpoint in 1 Cor.6, lawsuits between:

individual believer vs. individual believer---pretty doggone clear its a moral no-no. Consequently, those who argue for it and attempt to find support here appear to be flirting with evading the Scripture

believers vs. Christian organizations, etc---less clear, but I think a moral case could be made against it. Though again, it's debatable. Consequently, it should not be a surprise that less ethical eyebrows were raised over this one.

Candidly, even if a case could be made for lawsuit here, how utterly tragic Christians must find themselves, for whatever reason, in a public court of law over issues they could not settle among themselves. Shame, shame, triple shame on us all.

I trust this helps. Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

Anonymous said...

Thank you for giving me your advice-
Why would you encourage me not to leave the SBC?.... is there a reason to stay..... can Christ accomplish his purposes outside the SBC? Yes and no- I do believe he wants to use the body of CHirst in the SBC. I do believe the call for unity is a must- as I am writing this I understand your fight even more.
Blessings,
B. aka anonymous

Anonymous said...

Excuse me.

The hundred pound gorilla in this room is that here is a intelligent, well educated woman, a gifted teacher, devoted believer, one who is answering God's call in good faith, gifted by the Lord, and yet is being denied her calling by a few Christians who has judged her unworthy of teaching men merely on the basis of her gender . . . where clearly in the Lord’s eye He is no respecter of gender. Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

ONE is one. O N E ! ! ! ! ! ! All of the above are indivisible!

That means she has just as much of the Holy Spirit dwelling in her as Dr. Patterson.

Right?

If one is given the gift of prophesying which is the highest office, what are you going to do with Joel 2:28/Act 2:17 ... O.T. prophecy and N.T. prophecy fulfilled - Pentecost a new day; a new way.

It is interesting that it is a "veil" that was rent in the TEMPLE.

Joel 2:28 "And it shall come to pass afterward, [that] I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit."

We know in Rev. 19:10 this: " for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy."

You would deny this young daughter, this handmaiden from speaking forth the testimony of Jesus? A Hebrew Scholar?

Wasn't there something said about a stumbling block and a millstone around a neck...?

Fire her, if she is an uninspired teacher. Fire her if her students are not learning. Men don't take her course if you are offended by her gender. But don't fire her just because you don't think she has authority to teach the testimonies of Jesus to men.

(Better study Paul a little harder and harmonize all of his doctrines against those limiting passages and so called authority you think you have. If you are intellectually and spiritually honest ... Paul contradicts himself ... harmonize it and it will change your whole ministry.)

The deepest and most anointed teachers I have ever had the privilege to study with have been three women and these women taught both genders effectively and powerfully. (One is a fantastic Greek/Hebrew scholar -- I've never in my 62 years found a preacher to exceed them.)

Amazing.

Dr. Klouda was and is wronged by these Christian men and the SBC.

I don't think the real issue is Christians suing Christians at all.

The spirit and intent of not going to law with our brothers is that the Lord would rather the both parties work it out between them and find reconciliation.

Maybe Roman law wasn't just but are you saying that all of American justice is unfair to Christians? Are our judges and attorneys presenting both sides before a jury of peers unable to find justice?

It would be a shame that a godless system like our American system of law just might be more just than this Christian institution.

Each person must follow what they believe God is leading them to do - with fear and trembling before an awesome God who sees all and knows all. Just maybe a lawsuit might indeed bring this gender debate to public view and needed changes might indeed come to the SBC.

Can we understand, a little, how you must have felt, Lord, when you said, 'God forgive them, they know not what they do.'?

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 253 of 253   Newer› Newest»