As a Fan of Christian Unity When Will the SBT Reconcile with the BGCT as It Did the BMA?

The Southern Baptists of Texas Convention (SBTC) and the Baptist Missionary Association of Texas (BMAT) have announced an historic agreement (see Southern Baptist Texan, Baptist Progress) bringing two groups of Texas Baptists together who have been separated denominationally for a century.

Dr. Bart Barber, a Texas pastor who also serves as a trustee and adjunct professor at Southwestern Theological Seminary, calls this announcement "progress toward good biblical unity." Dr. Barber also mentions that no "doctrine" is being compromised in the merge.

What do churches of the Baptist Missionary Association believe? Examining the doctrinal statement of the Baptist Missionary Association of Texas, one notices that there are three short statements about God and creation, one statement about man's depravity, four statements about salvation, and SEVEN lengthy statements about the "true" church.

Google "Landmarkism" and "BMA" and you will have a supply of interesting reading material. I have written many articles on the infiltration of the tenets of Landmarkism into the Southern Baptist Convention. I have stated publicly that I don't mind at all cooperating with Landmarks in the Southern Baptist Convention, but most Landmarks would have a problem cooperating with many of our SBC churches. Why? Landmarks believe ...

(1). There is only one "true" church and it is the local Baptist church structured on proper polity.
(2). There is no legitimate baptism unless an "authorized" official from the "true" church baptizes.
(3). Gospel cooperation is attained only when "true" churches cooperate with each other in evangelism.
(4). Closed communion is a tenet of the New Testament and essential for proper church polity.
(5). There is no such thing as a "universal church." The local Baptist church of Christ is the true church.

Dr. Paige Patterson has served as a board member of BMA organizations and universities, and is sympathetic with Landmark beliefs. A prized first edition of Landmark founder J.A. Graves' tome The Great Iron Wheel sits on the coffee table in the Presidential mansion at Southwestern Theological Seminary.

Again, I commend the Southern Baptists of Texas for their step toward Christian unity by seeking reconciliation with the Baptist Missionary Association of Texas. My question is "When will the efforts toward Christian unity be extended toward the Baptist General Convention of Texas?"

One might answer my question by saying, "When the doctrine of the Baptist General Convention of Texas lines up with the doctrine of the Southern Baptist Convention of Texas and the Baptist Missionary Association of Texas, that's when."

If that indeed is the answer, then I suggest that the merging of the SBT and the BMA has nothing to do with Christian "unity" but the merging of two groups with similarly narrow and ultimately unbiblical ideological views of the local church. That's not "unity."
The Conservative Resurgence was said to have been about the inerrancy of the Bible, but the continuing fundamentalist domination within the SBC has led some to go far beyond the argument over the nature Scripture to only cooperating with those who agree on tertieary interpretations of Scripture. The SBT reconciling with the BMA and not the BGCT confirms what I've been writing for five years, but my hope is that the spirit of unity will extend toward the BGCT as well.

The Stated Reason for the Closing the Counseling Program at SWBTS Is Finances

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary recently announced the cancellation of the licensure program for counseling. The stated reason for the closure of this educational program is finances, or more precisely, a shortfall of budget funds. Many Southern Baptist counselors have been trained in counseling through this popular and effective program, and many men and women are currently enrolled in the licensure program--and they were shocked when the announcement was made. I have heard from several of them. Some of the concerns expressed by these Southern Baptists include the following:

(1). Acceptance of the Dead Sea Scroll fragments seems to be an unwise decision on the part of trustees when programs like the counseling licensure program, the Children’s Center, and other ministries are being closed because of finances. Though the fragments were gifted by a trustee, the cost of proper care, public display, and other associated expenses related to "the hundreds of thousands" who will come to Fort Worth to see the fragments will be great. It seems to many that the seminary should function as an educational institution first, a cultural museum second. In times of financial crises, educational programs should have priority. Someone should politely tell the trustee "Thanks, but no thanks."

(2). The fact that the seminary has broken ground for a new chapel when the current one is not full during seminary assemblies is also troubling the counseling students. "Could this money have been used more effectively for educational needs of the students rather than capital needs proposed by the administration?”

(3). I do not know SWBTS trustee Gary Loveless. He is the trustee who made the "large financial gift to the SWBTS" to allow the SWBTS administration to obtain the Dead Sea Scroll fragments. I'm sure he is a fine man, and obviously a successful businessman and oil man. I heard Gary in an interview with CBS, and he revealed his motive for giving the money to purchase the Dead Sea scroll fragments (quote): "One day, when we are all standing before Him (Jesus Christ), and we got millions of people out there, when I hold my hand up, He will know who I am. That's really, for me, you know, what it is all about."

What? Did he mean what he said? I thought I might have misunderstood him, so I listened to the interview an additional three times. No. I understood correctly. Gary believes that the reason Christ will recognize him at the judgement is because he purchased the Dead Sea scrolls for SWBTS. That kind of thinking has more in common with Tetsel and the sale of indulgences than biblical, or even Baptist, theology.

(3). Once the licensure program for counseling is removed at SWBTS, it will be very difficult to start it up again. Further, with a desire to increase enrollment, not decrease it, the removal of this popular ministry program guarantees fewer enrolled ministerial students this next fall.

(4). Who is leading SWBTS? Are trustees actually governing and supervising the direction the seminary is taking, or are those who are serving as trustees of SWBTS doing so at the will of administrators? It seems to me that the Southern Baptist Convention had better wake up or SWBTS will soon be just a shell of her former self. Provided below are an additional two links about the changing of the counseling program and the Dead Sea Scrolls acquisitions.

(5). (Update) Another reason for concern, given in a crystal clear comment from my father within the comment section of this post, is as follows:

"With regards to the closing of one and the beginning of another counseling program whose purpose is, and I quote the President of SWBTS..."The program will emphasize biblical principles set in the context of developing a biblical worldview and perspective on life.”

I have to say that--having been pastor to many involved in leading and teaching in the soon to be former program, including Dr. Ted Dowell and his wife Omalee, while I pastored Southcliff in Ft. Worth--that WAS their goal, objective and desire also.

Just for the record."

My response to Paul Burleson's comment: "One wishes to accept the stated reason for abandonment of the progam (finances), but could it in reality be ideological?

In other words, could it be a statement that administration believes "licensed" counseling is wrong because it is not "biblical" or lacks a "biblical worldview?"

Just asking."

For futher reading, see:

SWBTS Press Release about the Dead Sea Scrolls Acquisition.

SWBTS Press Release about the Closing of the Counseling Licensure Program.

Christmas 2009 at Pecan Manor and Southwestern Theological Seminary

This video from Pecan Manor gives you a peek into the Presidential Home of Drs. Paige and Dorothy Patterson for Christmas 2009. It's a very interesting video for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the opportunity to see the incredibly beautiful Christmas trees throughout the Presidential mansion and the tasteful, seasonal decorations throughout the home. While narrating the video, Dorothy Patterson mentions the need for prayer for Southwestern during these days of "national crises" and for the students, trustees, and professors who are having to bear burdens that are not of their own making. I join with the Pattersons in praying for the Lord's blessings at Southwestern Theological Seminary.

However, according to the Christmas edition of the alumni magazine, sent to all SWBTS alumni by the Seminary public relations department, not all the news coming out of SWBTS is cause for concern. One of the reasons for "celebration" is the growth of The Horner Homemaking House. Students enrolled in the "homemaking" degree program at SWBTS were housed for the first time in Horner this fall. I quote from the alumni magazine the reasons given for celebrating what God is doing at SWBTS:

"What excitement is found in the Meal Preparation classes working out of a pristine culinary center! (What excitement is found) in the Clothing Construction classes taught in a large room with sewing machines for every student and all other necessary accoutrements for learning this important craft! Bountiful "showers" are being hosted to help us add needed equipment and resources.

Without a doubt, the training needed to host parties at Christmas time, parties similar to those being hosted at Pecan Manor in 2009, is second to none at SWBTS. The Horner Homemaking House sure seems to make happy those housewives headed for homemaking. One trusts Southern Baptists in seminary are being as well prepared to help those headed to hell. One also can't help but wonder what Benajah Harvey Carroll, L. R. Scarborough, E. D. Head and Robert E. Naylor might be thinking about these days.

In His Grace,


Wade

The Big Picture: Resisting Separatist Ideology

This past week in the blog world has not been a particularly pleasant one. Sometimes it helps to back up and try to show the big picture. I remind Southern Baptists that it is possible to disagree with an ideology or a particular point of theology and not attack the character of the person with whom you disagree. To fundamentally disagree with the separatism of a person who adheres to Landmark ecclesiology and tries to creedally enforce every Southern Baptist Church to practice closed communion is not the same thing as disliking the Landmarker. To publicly express disagreement with the ideology of Fundamentalism that urges separation from other evangelicals is not the same thing as attacking the character of the Fundamentalist. To make it known that you abhor any ideology that would compel the termination of a Southern Baptist who disagrees over the extent of the atonement is not the same thing as abhorring the person who is seeking the terminations.

To publicly reveal that Paige Patterson is voicing his desire not to have faculty members at SWBTS who hold to classical Calvinism is not to attack Dr. Patterson's character. As I have said on numerous occasions before, I believe Dr. Patterson is a brother in Christ and is due all the love and respect every follower of Jesus should be given. In addition, to call the ideology of Paige Patterson a narrow, Fundamentalist, Landmark and separatist ideology is not to attack the Christian character of Paige Patterson. Thousands of people can individually attest to Dr. and Mrs Paige Patterson's personal civility and kindness. It is not Christian character that is being exposed and questioned, but rather it is the separatist ideology of some in the Southern Baptist Convention that is being identified and resisted. It is their ideology that compels them to separate from other Southern Baptist Christians who disagree.

The Ideology of Separatism

After a ten year absence from personal participation in Southern Baptist Convention ministry at a national level, I began serving as a trustee for the International Mission Board in 2005. In the almost four years since that time my eyes have been opened to the effects of the separatist ideology held by many in strategic positions of power in the SBC. I have stated before that I believe with all my heart that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant and infallible Word of God. I have no problem confessing my belief in the veracity of the Bible.

But separatist ideology goes way beyond a commitment to the veracity of Scripture itself. Separatists have a hard time comprehending that interpreting the Word of God and teaching people what the Bible says is not the same thing as affirming the Word of God and telling people what the Bible is. It is because there are differences of interpretation among Southern Baptists regarding what the sacred text says that all of us who are Christ-loving, Bible-believing Southern Baptists must learn to cooperate with each other rather than separate from one another.

For lack of a better nomenclature, those Southern Baptists who adhere to "separatist" ideology are sometimes called Baptist Identity people. These separatists have trouble believing that Christ-loving, Bible-believing, Southern Baptists can actually disagree over what the Bible is saying and still cooperate in missions and ministry in the SBC. In fact, when they come across a Christ-loving, Bible-believing Southern Baptist who disagrees with them, they implement plans to attempt to forcibly remove them from ministry or service (i.e. "separate").

Examples of Separation

(1). This is precisely what happened to missionaries who believed, contrary to the beliefs of Baptist Identity people, that spiritual gifts (i.e. a private prayer language) still exists. Baptist Identity people, compelled by their ideology of separatism, successfully implemented policies to remove these missionaries from future service in the SBC.

(2). This is precisely what happened to missionaries who were not baptized "in a church that holds to eternal security," which Baptist Identity people believe is the only proper description of biblical baptism. Baptist Identity people successfully implemented policies to remove these missionaries from future service in the SBC.

(3). This is precisely what happened to female professors who taught Hebrew and history at Southwestern Theological Seminary, contrary to a specific interpretation of the Bible by Baptist Idenity people that "a woman shall not teach a man," at any time, in any spiritual manner. Baptist Identity people successfully removed these women from their ministries.

(4). This is precisely what is happening to autonomous Southern Baptist churches that make decisions that are contrary to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 and Baptist Identity leaders - Baptist Identity people are seeking to disfellowship that church.

A few years ago I defended First Baptist Church, Holdenville, Oklahoma from excommunication from the South Canadian Association because the church practiced open communion and receiving into membership people who had not been baptized in a Baptist church. The Baptist Identity leaders who brought the recommendation for disfellowship were all Landmark, Fundamentalist, separatists, including the Director of Missions. I successfully defended the church and the motion to disfellowship from FBC Holdenville failed at the annual meeting.

(5). This is precisely what is happening at Southwestern Theological Seminary in relation to classical Calvinists on faculty, both now and in the future.

We Must Resist Ideological Separation

Some are very angry with my two posts last week that called out the ideology of SWBTS administrators that compels them to separate from classical Calvinists at SWBTS. I would suggest that we should not be surprised with any attempts to separate from classical Calvinists at SWBTS. It is consistent with the separatist ideology held by the President and administration. Let the words of Dr Paige Patterson and Dr. David Allen, Dean of the School of Theology, speak for themselves:

"Southwestern will not build a school in the future around anybody who could not look anybody in the world in the eyes and say, "Christ died for your sins." Paige Patterson, President of SWBTS, February 5, 2009

“A consistent five-point Calvinist cannot look a congregation in the eyes or even a single sinner in the eye and say: “Christ died for you.” What they have to say to be consistent with their own theology is “Christ died for sinners.” Since Christ did not die for the non-elect, and since the five-point Calvinist does not know who the elect are, it is simply not possible in a preaching or witnessing situation to say to them directly “Christ died for you.” Dr. David Allen, Dean of SWBTS School of Theology, SWBTS Center for Theological Research, November 2008

The above, my friends, is the latest example of the reason why separatist ideology, the core feature of the so called Baptist Identity movement, must be resisted with all hands on deck. Southern Baptists have historically disagreed over the extent of the atonement. Some Southern Baptists have believed that Christ died as the Substition for every sinner, even those who will ultimately be punished in hell for their sins. Other Southern Baptists have believed, namely the Calvinists among us, that Christ died as a Substition for only those sinners God chose to deliver from their sins, sinners the Bible calls "the elect," "His people," "the Bride of Christ," etc . . .

This issue has never been one over which Southern Baptists have divided, nor should it be. I am not resisting Paige Patterson the man. I am resisting the ideology that compels Paige Patterson to separate from Southern Baptists who disagree with him. I would say the same thing to any Calvinist who had a similar separatist theology.

That, in my opinion, is the big picture.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

Forcibly Removing All the Tulips at SWBTS

Dr. Paige Patterson met with professors in the theology school at SWBTS and implied the seminary would be letting go the Calvinist professors from the seminary, claiming that the lack of funds and the need to reduce faculty as the rationale for the impending releases. Odd, however, was the seemingly chosen method of reduction. It was not years of service, nor even the performance of the professors, but rather, administration sought to ascertain just who on the faculty were avowed "tulip" men, and those are the ones being let go. Some of the professors present at the meeting included men who specifically informed administration of their beliefs at the time of their hiring, and they were told at the time their beliefs were not a problem.

But it seems Calvinism is a problem to the powers that be at SWBTS. At least one professor from the philosophy department, himself on the brink of release, was present. The professors faced a grilling as to their soteriological belief system. They were asked to declare how many points of Calvinism to which they ascribed, and an even more penetrating series of questions were posed to that unfortunate soul who had the temerity to say "four" or "five" points.

Historically, dismissals at SWBTS have taken the backdoor approach of "You have a year to find a job," but the rough economic environment might speed that process up just a tad for these tulip men. Here's hoping they can make it through the spring.

Of course, it is the perogative of the SWBTS President to release whomsoever he will, but the forced, imminent departure of Calvinists from SWBTS illustrates just how far we have come since ideologues, who can't handle dissent, have taken charge of the Southern Baptist Convention.

In His Grace,



Wade Burleson

Somebody Else Has To Tell Us We're Naked?

Many of you have read the article from Baptist Press, written by Paige Patterson, that explains away any discouraging conclusions over LifeWay's data on the decreasing membership of the Southern Baptist Convention. Dr. Patterson acts as if it is no big deal, and that people viewing the statistics as a negative reflection on the SBC are like those who see ghosts and goblins.

Not many of you may have read, however, an interesting article by Dr. Lovett Weems, who also comments on LifeWay's statistics for the SBC. Dr. Weem's is sort of the United Methodist equivalent of John Maxwell. Alan Riley, who sent me the article, informs me Dr. Weem's heads up UMC’s Lewis Center for Church Leadership and has written some great articles on leadership and influence. In this week’s edition of their weekly newsletter, Leading Ideas, he addresses what other churches can learn from the SBC membership decline. It’s a somewhat long article, but is really interesting to see how the SBC – and the numbers decline that has been much in the news lately - is viewed by UMC leaders compared to Dr. Paige Patterson and other Southern Baptist leaders.

Several notable pull-outs from the Weem's article include:

*** “When membership declines, the natural tendency is to explain it away… when the Southern Baptists showed their first membership decline in seventy years, some blamed the loss on a new computer system, while others said it was a temporary downturn as churches “clean” their rolls. (Methodists have used the “cleaning the rolls” mantra to explain slow growth or no growth for over a century.) Even allowing for the imprecise nature of church rolls, membership decline should be seen for what it is: a lagging indicator that some other important things need attention.”

*** “Although the Southern Baptist Convention has always been conservative, in recent decades internal wars have led to a much more ideologically conservative, some would say fundamentalist, church. And this may be taking a toll on membership. The denomination’s first membership loss came in 1998, after the Convention passed a resolution about "wives submitting graciously to their husbands."”

*** “Some anticipated that evangelistic fruitfulness would be renewed in the wake of the more conservative emphasis, but this has not been the case. Becoming more conservative does not correlate with more new believers any more than just becoming more liberal does. There are many other variables.”

*** "With maturity comes a level of organizational complexity that can be a barrier to growth. And as churches and their members prosper, there is a temptation to become removed from the practices that led to success in the first place.”

**** “Some demographic indicators suggest that Southern Baptists may be joining that cohort of mainline denominations that has been losing members since the 1960s, suggesting perhaps that well-established denominations, regardless of their theology, are increasingly unable to reach new Christians.”

The full article can be read here.

God forbid that a Methodist leader says what no current Southern Baptist is willing to say about our own convention. It is almost like the vast majority of Southern Baptists are silent while our leaders pass by proclaiming "health" and "all is well," dressed in magical clothes' sold by the con artist named power and self-deception, only to have a little boy (Weems) from another town, who knows no better, shout out, "Hey, you're all naked!"

The Contaminated Pulpit and Other Weird Things

Prior to the vote for adoption of the BFM 2000 I had written a couple of open letters that were published in our state Baptist paper.

The letters articulated my feelings that the proposed confession contained a couple of tertiary, non-essential doctrines - including the prohibition of women 'Senior Pastors' - that should never have been placed there by the BFM committee in the first place.

I explained that the Baptist Faith and Message, the only statement of doctrinal consensus that defined the parameters of our missionary cooperation, should only focus on the essentials of our faith and Baptist identity.

There is no position of "Senior Pastor" mentioned in the Bible. There are hundreds of Baptist women who teach, shepherd, and disciple both men and women, particularly in overseas cultures where Christian leadership is all about humble service and giftings and not gender. The Bible does not prohibit women from teaching men the Scriptures.

The BFM 2000 prohibition against "women serving as Senior Pastors" seemed to me to be very Western (cultural) and extra-biblical requirement. Nevertheless, when it came time to vote for the 2000 BFM I voted for its adoption, believing that the prohibition statement was really not that big of a deal.

Little did I realize at the time that there was a movement beginning in the far right of the SBC to exclude women from ALL ministry in the Southern Baptist Convention.

Some Southern Baptists leaders like Paige Patterson believe that any ministry conducted by women that involves 'teaching' men (over the age of 12) or having 'authority over men' should be universally prohibited.

 The BFM 2000 was used as the basis for this removal of women from their God-called, Spirit-led ministries, even though the BFM only prevented women from serving as 'Senior Pastors'.

Illustrations of the Effects of the SBC Move Against Women

In 2004 Dr. Karen Bullock, a conservative scholar and an acclaimed author, was removed from her position as Professor of Church History at Southwestern Theological Seminary.

At the time, Dr. Bullock, a member of the SWBTS faculty since 1994, was one of the more popular Southwestern professors and also served as the Assistant Dean of the School of Theology. Dr. Bullock was removed from her position only because she was female. It is widely believed that Dr. Bullock delivered one of the greatest chapel talks (i.e. 'sermons') in the history of Southwestern Theological Seminary. The tape has since been removed from Southwestern's archives, but we intend to post the audio in the next few weeks.

Here's where it get's bizarre.

The pulpit from behind which Dr. Bullock spoke was eventually removed from Southwestern's chapel under orders of the new President of SWBTS, Dr. Paige Patterson.

Dr. Patterson explained to those he had to remove it because "it had been contaminated by a woman preaching behind it." 

Though the rumor persisted that the historic pulpit had been taken out and burned, the truth is far less dramatic. It remains hidden behind stacks of supplies in a closet at the seminary's library, never having seen the light of day since its removal.

The forced exit of Dr. Bullock had been preceded in 2001 by the removal of Dr. David Crutchley from his position as the Dean of the School of Theology. Crutchley was the man that had recommended the trustees hire Dr. Bullock.

In addition, Dr. Kenneth Hemphill, President of Southwestern Theological Seminary, was eventually forced out when he saw the handwriting on the wall. A Tenure Review Committee, formed by SWBTS trustees and VP Craig Blaising, opposed Dr. Hemphill's Presidential recommendation that Dr. Karen Bullock should be given tenure.

Though Dr. Hemphill called his eventual departure an 'early retirement', it is obvious through his correspondence to the Tenure Review Committee that there was a sharp disagreement over the denial of tenure to Dr. Karen Bullock, and of course, Dr. Hemphill went to work for the Executive Committee in Nashville making for a very short 'early' retirement.

When Dr. Paige Patterson was hired to replace Dr. Hemphill one of his first acts was to hire David Allen (who just happened to be the SWBTS trustee who chaired the board meeting at which Patterson was hired).

The chairman of the search committee, Dr. Denny Autrey, was also elevated to a top post in the Patterson administration.

Of course, it is now a matter of sworn testimony that Dr. Patterson also orchestrated the removal of Dr. Sheri Klouda, the Professor of Hebrew in the School of Theology at SWBTS, solely because of her gender. Dr. Patterson says he believed he was simply fulfilling the wishes of the Southern Baptist Convention and the BFM 2000 'prohibition' of women pastors by removing Dr. Klouda.

To believe this, you must overlook the fact that Southwestern itself trained Klouda in the Hebrew language, awarding her the Ph.D.. And for you to accept her removal as justified, you must agree with the statement that her being hired to teach Hebrew was 'a momentary lapse of parameters'.

The real issue is that men who are now in charge at Southwestern don't want women around.

As recently as the fall of 2006, a professor at SWBTS refused to allow three female Master of Divinity students to 'preach' with males present. All male Master of Divinity students were told not to come to the class the day the females were to 'preach,' and even the professor himself sent his wife to 'listen' to the women 'indulge in the exposition' of Scripture.

It has long been known that there have been attempts by trustees at the International Mission Board to remove any woman from a 'position of authority' within the organization. It is a known fact that there is not one female Regional Leader and that there are less than a handful of Strategy Coordinators at the International Mission Board who are female - and their positions are in jeopardy. In addition, there is no female on the Executive Team at the Administration Offices - except the secretary who is there to take notes.

Not all IMB trustees have been involved with the effort to minimize roles, and maybe IMB Executive Staff should share the responsibility for the reduced role of women within the IMB, but I find it hard to fault them because of their fear of reprisal for going against trustee leadership desires.

In early 2006 I confronted a small group of male trustees led by Bill Sutton, the hunting friend of Paige Patterson, and Bob Pearle, the pastor of Paige Patterson, who were discussing how to remove the woman who was the acting Vice-President of the International Mission Board. I overheard a late night meeting between these men and another eight to ten trustees in the lobby of the hotel where we IMB trustees were being housed.

This 'informal' caucus of men was discussing how to remove the Vice-President from her position and the steps needed to accomplish their goal. The sentiment was expressed that a woman had no place being in this particular position of authority. After listening to just a minute or two of their discussion I went upstairs to get a couple of friends to act as witnesses. I then came back down to the lobby and confronted the trustees. I let them know, in no uncertain terms, that not only was their meeting a violation of our 'Blue Book' which stated that during regularly scheduled IMB trustee meetings no trustees shall meet in 'caucus' sessions, either formal or informal, to discuss IMB business and that the opinions I had overheard expressed in that caucus meeting about women were a violation of Christian charity, not to mention Scripture.

The morning after the late night confrontation, I went to the female Vice-President and Dr. Rankin and told them that there might be a move designed to either publicly humiliate or remove the Vice-President from her 'acting' position.

I told them both that if it came in the plenary session, as I had heard discussed, to not worry - I would not let her be mistreated. It was in that particular January trustee meeting in 2006 that the motion came to move into Executive Session (closed doors). I was seated on the front row and asked the Chairman, Tom Hatley, why we were moving into Executive Session.

He did not answer me, and so I turned to my friend Rick Thompson, pastor of Council Road Baptist Church in Oklahoma City, and said, "Rick, get ready, they are going after Wendy. I'm not going to let them. This could get heated.".

Once the doors were closed I heard the motion . . . "I move that Wade Burleson be removed from the International Mission Board for . . .". Rick and I looked at each other in disbelief and shock.

Then I knew.

The system established years ago for the appointment of trustees enabled our boards and agencies to be filled with only like-minded Southern Baptists who would elect trustee leaders that had a particular ideology. I don't know if it should be called 'Fundamentalism'...maybe not.

One thing is for sure; in this closed system, no dissent or questioning is allowed. We must find some way as Southern Baptists to end our narrowness on certain issues or we are going to lose the blessing of experiencing the gifts and talents of the women in our convention who are filled with the love of Christ.

The Issue Is Not About Women Senior Pastors

In a convention where a macho President can carry shotguns onto the lawn of one of our seminaries and fire rounds at squirrels in trees (as happened last Friday), and in a convention that often resembles the soap opera 'Dallas' where gas wells are being drilled in the old RV parking lot to supplement seminary income (as it is at SWBTS), and in a convention where the indoctrination of future pastors includes the teaching that the only rightful place of women is in the home as a homemaker, and in a convention that continues to fund degrees in homemaking for women at institutions that used to be known for great classical, pastoral training, and in a convention that sometimes seems really scared to simply let the sisters function, it is time we took a very hard look at the direction we are heading. And, it has nothing to do with 'Senior Pastors' being women.

For a long while, I have justified my participation in the Conservative Resurgence as a desire to keep our convention committed to the sacred, infallible word of God. I really did believe we were battling for the Bible. And though I could not see in the Bible where there was any direct 'prohibition' against women pastors, I was willing to let that slide because I am not personally bothered by the prohibition.

To me, there were more important matters, and I was not interested in making the removal of this prohibition an issue. However, now that I have seen that the SBC is moving further and further to the right by trustees adding ADDITIONAL restrictions and ADDITIONAL prohibitions THAT ARE NOT FOUND IN SCRIPTURE, I now know that something needs to be done and I cannot be silent. If it seems to you that I am advocating women pastors, you are dead wrong. I am speaking out because I am seeing the prohibition against women pastors as a smoke screen for other activities within the SBC that are both unjustifiable and illogical.

Women are being removed as SBC professors.
Women are being removed from the SBC classrooms.
Women are being removed from serving as SBC administrators.
Women are being removed as SBC strategic coordinators on the mission field.

All this under the justification that the BFM says women shall not be 'Senior Pastors'. What? How do the above positions fall under the category of 'Senior Pastor'? The BFM doesn't say women can't serve in these areas!

I have an observation: to remove women from being SBC professors, students, missionaries, and administrators, all because the BFM 2000 says they can't serve in those positions is as dishonest as someone acting as if the BFM 2000, the only consensus doctrinal statement of the SBC, prohibits people from serving as missionaries who pray in a private prayer language. Oh, wait, that's already being done.

Wake up, people.

An Email from Dr. Klouda Revealing Her Feelings

I received the following email today from Dr. Sheri Klouda. It is published here with permission. We continue to raise funds for her family during her husband's illness. Feel free to send your tax deductible contribution to Emmanuel Baptist Church, c/o The Sheri Klouda Family Benevolence Fund, 2505 W. Garriott, Enid, Oklahoma 73703.

Pastor Wade:

I am still trying to deal with the disappointment of Judge McBryde's ruling, and I still do not know what options we have left, but I wanted to write and let you and Mr. Cole know how much I appreciate your continued support. If it were not for both of you, the real facts would never be known, and I am grateful that Dr. Patterson's actual words have been published publicly. I am glad that folks will realize I did not fabricate my claims, and it is important that they understand I meant no malice in my efforts to seek correction of the injustice against our family. I was really hopeful that we might realize success and gain some of what we lost. Nevertheless, God's will be done.

I am not sure whether the lawsuit was a wise move with regard to my professional career. Oftentimes a charge of discrimination against a former employer follows a woman's career for life. In addition, I had hoped to return someday to Baptist life and teach in a Baptist college or seminary. I am not sure whether the damage is irreparable or whether there is enough Baptist support out there to help me realize that hope. Once again, only God knows where he wants me to serve, and I continue to appreciate the opportunity he has given me to work with college students at Taylor.

I am waiting to hear whether Mr. Richardson considers an appeal a wise course of action. In the meantime, thank you both for your initiative and your activism, for your concern and your desire to see righteousness among our Baptist leaders. I am still Baptist, which demonstrates my commitment and the integrity of my beliefs. My family is struggling with the actions of so-called believers who hurt others, who deny the truth and manipulate people and institutions. I sought to do the best job I could at Southwestern as I tried to meet all the needs of my students through God's grace. I have to believe the Scriptures that tell us that "all things work together for good, for those who love God." I am grateful that I touched so many lives while teaching in one of our Southern Baptist seminaries. I long to hear how my students fare as they branch out all over the world.

I felt a word was overdue. I have so much more to say, and yet, I cannot find the words yet. But others are finding the words for me as I seek to deal with the discouragement and what this decision means for our family. I am touched by the willingness of others to take over and carry the message on my behalf.

To God be the Glory,


Sheri Klouda

A Woman Indulging in the Exposition of Scripture

There were several things that Dr. Paige Patterson said under promise to tell the truth in his depostion for the Klouda v. Southwestern Seminary, Et Al lawsuit that are incredulous to me. And, yes, the word 'incredulous' is the appropriate word here. It is difficult for me to believe that a man, much less a Southern Baptist leader, would make such statements.

First, as reported by SBC Outpost, Dr. Patterson participated in this exchange with attorney Gary Richardson regarding Dr. Klouda's work in the classroom as she taught Hebrew to future pastors:

Question (Richardson): Well, I’m interested in whether or not you claim here under oath today, Dr. Patterson, that you mentioned to these two gentlemen (Blaising and Allen) any concern about her (Klouda) violating the stipulation that she was placed under?

Answer (Patterson): Yes, I did mention it to both of them.

Q. And what — what is it you say you said to them?

A. I don’t recall the exact conversation, of course, but I did say to them that I felt that there was violation taking place perhaps, and furthermore, that I felt that it was inappropriate ecclesiologically for her to be in this position.

Q. And what was the violation that you claim here today that you told them that you thought was taking place?

A. I believe that she was indulging in the exposition of the scripture.

Q. Giving her own conclusions?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. Yes?

A. Yes, I’m sorry.

Dr. Klouda, a Hebrew professor, trained at Criswell College in the subject of Hebrew, bestowed the Master's and Doctoral Degrees from Southwestern Theological Seminary for her expertise in the Hebrew language, hired unanimously by the trustees of Southwestern Seminary Theological Seminary to teach Hebrew - 'indulged' in drawing conclusions about the sacred text.

Ladies and gentlemen, last time I checked the sacred text was written in Hebrew. How in heaven's name can you study the Hebrew of the sacred text and NOT draw conclusions. I find this absolutely incredulous.

Second, and probably even worse, is this exchange between Klouda's attorney Gary Richardson and Paige Patterson (complete and unedited)

Question(Richardson): Would think in regards to the issue of -- of women in the church, that you and Paul Pressler have acted responsibly for the convention?

Answer (Patterson): I certainly hope we have, we've done our very best.

Q. And -- and I think that you would agree that- that Wade Burleson would feel that he's done his very best, wouldn't you?

A. Yes, he probably does, uh-hu. I'm not judging his heart. That's only known to God. That's something he does fairly regularly with regard to me.

Q. On Page 1595?

A. Yes.

Q. In view of time, I'll try to rush through this, but the third paragraph down it says, There it is. There is the narrow, biblical interpretation that says it all and causes our convention some serious problems. No woman shall have authority over a man. Did I read that correctly -- correctly?

A. Yes.

Q. And he (Wade Burleson) is saying that in his opinion, that you have gone far beyond the prohibition of women pastors?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. Right?

A. Apparently that's what he's saying.

Q. And, of course, you disagree?

A. Yes.

Q. According to Patterson's rigid and narrow interpretation of the Bible, it is wrong for a woman to serve in any position of authority over a man; is that an accurate statement?

A. In the church, yes.

Q. How about anywhere else?

A. Well I don't take a position about anything else, because the Bible is not crystal clear on it. The Bible does say in the Book of Isaiah, that it is something of an indication of a wicked society when women rule over them.

Patterson claims to not 'take a position about anything else' (i.e. in terms of women being in 'authority' over a man) BUT THEN GOES ON TO SAY IT IS AN INDICATION OF A WICKED SOCIETY WHEN WOMEN RULE OVER MEN. Further, throughout the deposition Patterson made remarks about how society is not following the standards of God's word, but the church must follow the infallible Word of God when it comes to women not having any authority over men.

For Paige Patterson, and men who believe like he, the issue has never been about Senior Pastors. That is only a smoke screen. The issue, pure and simple, is this: No woman shall have any position of authority over a man - period. If this attitude is allowed to prevail in the SBC then we will be no less culpable than when we allowed leaders of the SBC to convince us that slaves should be subjected to their masters.

In His Grace,

Wade

When Aberrant Policy Births Inconsistent Practice

A November 25, 2007 news article from the Memphis Commercial Appeal reported on the missionary work in India of Bellevue Baptist Church, Memphis, Tennessee. Bellevue is the home church of many professors and administrators of Mid-America Seminary - a seminary whose leadership that is pressing for far tighter and narrower doctrinal parameters on the authority of the baptizer and ecclesiology than Scripture demands and the Southern Baptist Convention has approved. Bellevue is the congregation that has acted as the patron and bankroller of the seminary (at least in its current location). International Mission Board Trustee Chairman John Floyd and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary Trustee Chairman Vann McClain are employees of Mid-America.

Though I am not sympathetic with the anti-missionary viewpoint of the article’s author, I was struck by a little detail or two related to baptism and ecclesiology. It appears that women from many villages across the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh came to a training center run by an Indian evangelist named Sathuluri who hosted a training program for village women that was fully - and solely - sponsored by Bellevue Baptist Church. During the course of the training event, at least one village woman, and implicit within the article - many more women - were baptized. There was no local church involved in the baptism. Women from all over the state were baptized by an evangelist, but they did not become members of any 'local' church that day. The women identified themselves with Christ - baptized at the hands of the evangelist who led them to Christ. This non-local church based baptismal service raises questions of inconsistency when juxtaposed to Dr. John Floyd’s, Mid-America's, and the 'new' (2005) IMB Baptism Position Paper that all posit an inflexible insistence that proper baptism is to be conducted only as an ordinance of the local church.

The following is a direct quote from the Memphis newspaper article:

“Sathuluri [the Bellevue sponsored evangelist] isn't as easygoing as his neighbor. When he discovers that an interpreter, who is Hindu, is in the compound the day he [Sathuluri] is to perform baptisms, Sathuluri threatens to call police to remove her and a Commercial Appeal reporter and photographer from the property.” (p.4). And then this: “The Bellevue missionaries watch from a viewing area next to the pool. Some offer tears, others camera flashes. None get close to the baptismal pool and wet women.”

I find it hard to believe anyone could be opposed to the good work that Bellevue is doing. I praise God for this Indian brother, Sathuluri, who is advancing the Kingdom among village women. Unless you have been on the mission field yourself, and personally understand the dangers new converts face for being baptized upon their profession of faith in Jesus Christ, you cannot fully appreciate Sathuluri's concern for the Hindu interpretor's presence. The evangelist is concerned for the safety of the converts he is about to baptize.

Again, pay careful attention. There is no 'local church' involved in these baptisms. There is no 'local church' into which these woman are being 'baptized into.' They are being baptized biblically, into identification with Jesus Christ. What this newspaper article reveals is the ironic and incongruent position of anyone who insists upon imposing tight definitions and parameters on our IMB missionaries while then finding it impossible to implement such rigid norms when they actually find themselves on the mission field.

The 2005 Paper Explaining the IMB’s Position on Baptism reads as follows:

First, that the only biblical mode for baptism is immersion. Second, that the only proper candidate for immersion is a regenerate believer in Jesus Christ. Third, that the act is purely symbolic and distinct from salvation itself and has no saving merit. Fourth, that baptism is a church ordinance and therefore the only proper administrator of it is a local New Testament church that holds to a proper view of salvation.

Further, the IMB Baptism Position Paper states:

Baptism must take place in a church that practices believer’s baptism by immersion alone, does not view baptism as sacramental or regenerative, and a church that embraces the doctrine of the security of the believer.

It is this last statement that baptism is 'in a church,' in conjunction with the fourth point above, which has created the baptism controversy at the IMB. This peculiar position on baptism is directly contradicted by The 1644 Baptist London Confession of Faith:

Article XLI

THE person designed by Christ to dispense baptism, the Scripture holds forth to be a disciple; it being no where tied to a particular church officer, or person extraordinarily sent the commission enjoining the administration, being given to them as considered disciples, being men able to preach the gospel.

John Gill, the great Baptist theologian of the 18th Century says this about baptism:

Baptism is not an ordinance administered in the church, but out of it, and in order to admission into it, and communion with it; it is preparatory to it, and a qualification for it; it does not make a person a member of a church, or admit him into a visible church; persons must first be baptized, and then added to the church, as the three thousand converts were; a church has nothing to do with the baptism of any, but to be satisfied they are baptized before they are admitted into communion with it.

Where Scripture is clear (as in the mode and candidate of baptism), we should be clear and unflinching. But, likewise, when God has chosen for Scripture to be ambiguous or ambivalent, we must resist the temptation to become dogmatic and prescriptive (as in 'baptism in a church that embraces the doctrine of eternal security').

I think the Memphis newspaper has done all Southern Baptists a good service in showing the danger of establishing a policy that reaches beyond the 2000 BFM, adds to the sacred Word of God by placing additional qualifications regarding the administrator of baptism, and is in the end, impractical in terms of implementation on the mission field. What's ironic to me is that the benefactor church of Mid-America and the home church of many Mid-America seminary professors is being used to show us the inconsistency.

I think it would be helpful if we, the trustees of the International Mission Board, focused on our duties of giving oversight to the work of Southern Baptist missions, but we refrain from seeking to implement tight doctrinal 'policies' or 'guidelines' that far exceed the 2000 BFM and make it very difficult for actual missionaries on the field to implement. In my opinion, the 2005 baptism 'guideline' is far worse than the 2005 'private prayer language' policy in terms of its overall effect on our Southern Baptist mission work.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

The Use of Exclamation Points in Press Releases

My father tells the story of coming across a preacher's handwritten outline where the preacher had made notations to himself in the margins. One such note said, "Weak point - shout loud." I laughed when I first heard my father tell this anecdote. But over the years I have found that in my own life, and among people in general, there is a tendency for all of us to shout when we feel our arguments may be weak. When we sense weakness in our arguments, or when we expect someone to challenge us, or when we make an appeal and are so vested in the outcome that impartial or objective thinking is impossible - we tend to shout our arguments verbally. The equivalent of shouting what we write is the use of the exclamation point.

This week, the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary Board of Trustees issued a statement in support of Drs. Paige and Dorothy Patterson. Professional writers will tell you that when an institution releases a public press statement, exclamation points should be avoided at all costs. Take a moment and read the White House press statements this past week. If you were to take the time to go back through the past year you would not find one exclamation point.

In the public press release issued by Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary there were three statements with exclamation points.

We cannot conceive how anyone can be any more open and honest than is Dr. Patterson!

A contribution given to SWBTS is a wise investment in God’s kingdom work!

Our Baptist forbearers were wise to set up the trustee system that Southern Baptists have in place. It works extremely well!

The trustees may feel all the above about their President and First Lady, financial gifts to Southwestern, and their role as trustees of the institution, but it would be wise to present their feelings without exlamation or overstatement. Why?

(1). Recent experiences at the North American Mission Board, the Baptist General Convention of Arizona, and other Baptist instutions and agencies show us that sometimes the trustee system can fail Southern Baptists - especially if trustees lose sight of their impartial and objective role of oversight and accountability.

(2). The public proclamation that trustees cannot conceive of anyone more 'open' and 'honest' than their President is unwise. Besides the obvious that every trustee ought to conceive of Christ as more open and honest, a Messiah-like acceptance of the character of their President places them in a very awkward position when it comes time to ask hard questions. Read carefully: I am not saying the President of SWBTS is not open and honest - I am saying that trustees of SWBTS should refrain from making such statements as long as they sit in a role of fiduciary accountability and institutional oversight. Something like: 'The office of President of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary demands integrity and we, the trustees of SWBTS, demand complete openness and honesty from our President. We have no reason to believe that our President has not met our expectations.'

(3). A student at Southwestern in the late 1990's, named Paul B., took another portion of this week's Statement of Support, simply changed the names and wrote:

"We believe that the incessant public attacks on Dr. and Mrs. Russell Dilday and other Baptist leaders of late are harmful to our mission of reaching the world with the Gospel. What the world, both Christians and non-Christians, sees is not Christ-like. Indeed, some of the actions are contrary to what the Bible teaches"

Southern Baptists would do well to remember that our institutions belong to the people of the Southern Baptist Convention. The cooperative ministries of 45,000 Southern Baptist Churches are not the personal kingdoms of individuals. Those ministries, whether they be the mission boards, the seminaries, or any other agency involved in kingdom work belong to the people.

Trustees would do well to remember that the Southern Baptist people are watching. We are interested in kingdom work. We are interested in reaching people for Christ. We are interested in our SBC institutions being governed by impartial, objective Southern Baptists who serve as trustees of the Southern Baptist Convention at large. We are not interested in favoritism, cronyism, or protectionism of personal kingdoms.

We are all better off when we leave out the exclamation points.

In His Grace,


Wade

What Christ Says About Christians and Lawsuits

At the most recent chapel service at Southern Theological Seminary, as part of the annual Mullin's Lectures, the President of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Forth Worth, Texas, made the following statement during his message:

“I am unalterably convinced that a significant percent of those who listen on any given Sunday to your message, though they are church members, are in fact lost. I judge that based much on the behavior of the church member. I cannot imagine a situation occurring among saved people where this one is taking that one to lawsuit (sic) in front of the, uh, pagan world. We are expressly forbidden that.”

One may listen to a recording of the entire chapel message here.

I think it is clear from Scripture that it is always best for Christians to settle their differences quickly, privately and justly. However, there are a few things one should consider before one assigns reprobation or eternal damnation to a brother or sister in Christ who takes a fellow Christian to civil or criminal court. It is a preacher's right to say what he feels from the pulpit, but it is the people's prerogative to judge whether or not the words are simply man's word, or in truth God's Word. God's Word seems to indicate something totally different from the preacher's quotation above.

(1). The courts of the land have been appointed by God for the purpose of justice.

When Christians follow Matthew 18 and the offending party shuns or refuses to listen to the offense, or where there is not a church (or church court) to sit in judgment, then it seems that I Peter 2:12-17 comes into play:

"Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right."

(2). There is Biblical precedent to appeal to secular authorities when a religious people or religious institution is poorly treating a Christian.

When the Jews sought to have Paul executed, the Roman commander resisted the desires of the religious Jews and ordered that Paul be flogged (whipped), but not executed. We read of Paul's reaction to the decision to have him whipped in Acts 22:25:

"Is it legal for you to flog a Roman citizen who hasn't even been found guilty?"

The Apostle Paul did not appeal to the Sanhedrin. The Apostle Paul did not appeal to the High Priest of the Jews. The Apostle Paul appealed to the secular Roman government on the basis of law.

Ray Steadman makes an interesting statement regarding appealing to the secular courts in his commentary on I Corinthians 6:

"I do not think he means that Christians are never to go to law; sometimes that is impossible to avoid . . . In certain cases, at least, this may be the only way that justice can be brought out."

(3). In an ideal situation, as was the case in the first few centuries of Christianity, a church court would listen to the grievances between brothers and rule justly. But except in a few, rare situations in certain denominations, all church courts have since been abolished. This leaves only secular civil courts as the final appeal.

I Corinthians 6:1-8 is used by some Christians as the final authority for a direct and eternal prohibition that Christians sue. This section of Corinthians calls attention to a long lost social function of the church — church courts. The following is taken from an exposition of I Corinthians 6:1-8 entitled Ordinary Christianity for the World"

Before Rome fell it was choked with a backlog of civil disputes in the Roman legal system. It could take years before a particular case came before a judge. The Roman legal system was choking on the rampant immorality and illegality that contributes to the rot of empires by generating social conflict. Great nations are more often destroyed from within by moral decay long before they fall victim to invading armies. And Rome had been rotting for hundreds of years before it was sacked by the Visigoths in 410 a.d.

At the same time, Christianity had inherited the elder rule system from the Old Testament, in which the local court overlapped the ecclesiastical court. We must remember that, while Rome had a great and powerful legal system, it pales in comparison to the Modern Western legal system in terms of its effectiveness and bureaucratization. Yet, even on the Western Frontier in early American history, civil courts were often few and far between. And in that context necessity required another way to solve disputes between people.

The structure of the Christian church, until the Modern era, had a system of courts to adjudicate matters between Christians — precisely because of Paul's admonition to avoid civil courts run by unbelievers. In the Modern era these church courts have, for the most part, fallen into neglect . . .

And yet, there is a contemporary movement to reestablish church courts in our time.

I believe it may be time that a church court be established for the Southern Baptist Convention - composed of godly men and women elected by the convention to handle matters of dispute involving state conventions and her agencies, national SBC agencies and entities and her employees, and other areas of SBC polity where there is no local church authority.

(4). Jesus Christ gives specific instructions regarding lawsuits and He says that those sued should make things right quickly IF they have done wrong. Notice, Jesus pronounces judgment upon the wrongdoer - but He makes no moral judgment regarding the person who sues the wrongdoer.

"If someone brings a lawsuit against you and takes you to court, settle the dispute with him while there is time, before you get to court. Once you are there, he will turn you over to the judge, who will hand you over to the police, and you will be put in jail. There you will stay, I tell you, until you pay the last penny of your fine." (Jesus Christ, quoted by the Apostle Matthew in Matthew 5:25,26)

I have recently received an email from a Southern Baptist who attended a forum entitled "How Submission Works in Practice: A Panel Discussion." I have asked for the audio of this forum, and have not yet received it, but the following is the account of a Southern Baptist who was present at the symposium and heard one of our Southern Baptist well-known speakers answer a question on how he counsels women who are abused by their husbands. I am not naming the speaker until I have heard the tape myself and verify the accuracy of first hand account sent to me - but this is the first hand account of what was said . . .

"At about fifty-five minutes into the message he is asked about how he handles wife abuse. He explained that he never recommends divorce, and only in the most serious of cases does he recommend a separation. He said he advises women who are being abused less seriously to do three things: pray, submit, and elevate their husbands. As an example of why he is right in counseling in this way, he gave an example of one of his counseling situations. A woman came to him and said she was being abused by her husband. He advised her that every night she should kneel down by the side of the bed and pray for her husband even if it made him mad and may cause him to beat her again. She did that, and she did get beaten. When she came back to church, she approached (the speaker) with her bruises and angrily told him, 'I hope you're happy,' to which he replied, 'Yes, ma'am, I am.' He went on to explain that he was happy because what the wife didn't know at that point was that the husband felt so bad about beating his wife again that he had come in earlier and repented and became a Christian and from that time on was a man of God. The moral of the story was that if a Godly woman stays in the situation and takes his advice (pray, submit, elevate), then she can trust God to move in the situation."

I can understand why some Southern Baptists, carrying the above mentality about succombing quietly and patiently to abuse, would argue that anyone who sues another cannot be a Christian. But as I look at all the teaching of the word of God, and the words of Christ himself, it would seem to me that the people who should be most worried about the court system are the abusers. God has established courts to punish the wrongdoer. In the above story, the wife could NEVER be considered the wrongdoer -even if she takes her husband to court. The abuser is the wrongdoer: period. End of story. If the courts stop the abuser from his abuse, then the courts have done their job - as appointed by God.

The federal judge in the Sheri Klouda vs. Southwestern lawsuit has denied all of Southwestern's motions to dismiss, and granted Dr. Klouda's second petition. Further, Judge McBryde has ordered a pre-trial settlement hearing between the parties and their primary counsel by mid-October. Dr. Klouda and her attorneys and SWBTS and their attorneys have to physically meet face-to-face in Fort Worth in a couple of weeks. This meeting was requested several times before any suit was filed, but there was no response from SWBTS. Now, they must respond.

Anyone who says Dr. Klouda is not saved because she has gone to the only court available to her to correct a wrong either does not believe in the sufficiency of Scripture and its clear teaching on these matters - which places Dr. Klouda well within the Biblical parameters of settling disputes over matters of law - or, is concerned that the judge may very well stop a form of abuse that some Southern Baptists find acceptable. Removing Southern Baptist educated, wonderfully competent, and justly hired women from Southern Baptist academia because it is the view of some narrow ideologists that it is solely the role of men to teach men in the classroom is, in my mind, abuse. It is a mistreatment of the women who were educated and hired for that very purpose, and simply stating their initial hiring was a mistake that needed to be corrected is not justification for the wrongful termination.

It would be prudent to abstain from making pronouncements on the condition of the soul of a Christian woman who, as a last resort, appeals to those government officials appointed by God to uphold justice.

It would also be prudent, as Jesus said, to "settle the dispute while there is still time."

In His Grace,


Wade

Does Anybody in the SBC Care About Daycare?

In May of this year Dr. Paige Patterson told the closing assembly of the World Congress of Families meeting in Poland that feminism and 'the marginalization of men' are threatening the home. Patterson said,

"Mom and hot apple pie have been replaced by institutional daycare centers and cold apple turnovers at McDonald's."

Patterson explained that if efforts are not made to support women staying at home where they belong, that in a few short years men will be increasingly underrepresented among "the intelligentsia" and will gradually cede leadership to women in areas that should be reserved for men. Patterson lamented that most of the women ascending to these new roles will maintain a major focus on a career, not on the family and on children.

Six years years prior to his speech before the World Congress of Families, Dr. Paige Patterson closed the Ruby Reid Child Development Center at Southeastern Theological Seminary. Patterson told SEBTS students that he had "ideological problems" with the seminary sponsorship of a child-care center. Patterson said,

"Recent discoveries regarding children reared in child-care centers have only escalated our convictions that the child that is most likely to have a happy and useful life is a child reared in the home with the parents, not in a child-care center,"

Patterson's claim that Ruby Reid was not closed for these ideological reasons or it would have been closed when he became President nine years earlier rings hollow. A President must wait a few years until he has a majority of trustees who support his ideological views - or he risks angering the very people who have the ability to terminate him.

Word has it that one of the reasons Phil Roberts is on the hot seat at Midwestern Theological Seminary is because he closed the seminary's child-care center. Midwestern's child-care center had financial problems back in 2000, but with outside management the center has grown a million dollar annual budget. The reasons for closing the child-care center seem to have not been adequately explained to the trustees of Midwestern, if at all. Though Midwestern remains financially viable, it makes no business sense to close a profitable child-care center.

That is, unless the President of Midwestern has an ideological problem with day-care centers - as does his mentor Dr. Patterson.

Southern Seminary announced in April 2000 that the campus child-care program would close. After a strong outcry of opposition, seminary President Al Mohler pledged to keep the center for another year while seminary leaders studied long-term options to meet the seminary's child-care needs. At the time, Dr. Mohler cited financial issues for the closing of the day-care center and denied claims that the decision was based on a belief that mothers should stay home with their children.

There is nothing necessarily morally wrong with a mother who chooses to stay at home to raise her children. There is also nothing necessarily morally wrong with a mother who chooses to work and places her children in day care. It would seem to me that the mother must follow the Lord's leadership in this area, and it may differ from one mother to another.

What IS wrong is when leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention, whomever they may be, determine what is wrong for all Southern Baptists - by ideological fiat. However, it seems that some Southern Baptists are beginning to understand the landscape of the SBC and are determined to resist the demands for ideological conformity. I think we will be a healthier convention when more and more Southern Baptists make their voices heard.

In His Grace,

Wade

To Whom Will Some Leaders Ultimately Listen?

Many are interested in the progress of the civil action against Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary by Dr. Sheri Klouda, the former female professor of Hebrew at SWBTS.

A few months ago Art Rogers called me and said someone from SWBTS had emphatically declared to him that the Klouda suit had been dismissed by the judge. I told him that it had not happened, and anyone who said it had was mistaken. Art informed me that the attitude of the person who told him the suit had been dismissed was one of absolute certainty. This past Friday the actual truth about the Klouda case was revealed.

The federal judge in charge has denied all of Southwestern's motions to dismiss the suit. Further, Klouda's second petition has been granted by the judge. Contrary to some who acted as if this case had no merit, the courts have indicated that there is sufficient reason for the case to proceed.

Judge McBryde's ruling can be interpreted several ways, but I think Matt's comment at SBC Outpost succinctly details the implications.

This is great news for her and terrible for Patterson.

Patterson was trying to get the lawsuit thrown out before having to engage in the discovery process. Now Klouda’s lawyers will have the opportunity to legally compel Patterson to turn over all kinds of evidence. There’s virtually no limit to what they can make him hand over. As long as what she’s asking for relates to her claims or Patterson’s defenses, he has to hand over the evidence (Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1)).

There are several types of discovery:

1. Interrogatories - Klouda’s lawyers can send a list of questions to Patterson that he must answer. One of the questions is guaranteed to be along the lines of, “Name every person with whom you in any way communicated concerning the potential dismissal of Dr. Klouda.”
2. Depositions - Klouda’s lawyers will be able to take depositions of Dr. Patterson and any other people they want to depose. A deposition is sworn testimony usually taking place in the lawyer’s office. The person being deposed is generally not permitted to refuse to answer any questions. Deposition testimony will only become public if the case goes to trial.
3. Production of documents - This one will be huge. Patterson will have to turn over all emails, letters, and any other documents that relate in any way to the situation with Klouda. Even if he has deleted emails, the court will probably require him to retrieve the deleted messages from backup files or through other means.

Patterson is also entitled to discover evidence. After both parties have had a chance to discover evidence, Patterson will probably move for the case to be thrown out on summary judgment. I’m oversimplifying things a little, but basically the judge will have to decide if there is any possibility that a reasonable jury could side with Klouda. If so, then Patterson’s motion for summary judgment will be denied. Klouda’s lawyers can use all the evidence from the discovery process (such as Patterson’s testimony, Klouda’s testimony, incriminating emails, etc.) to oppose the motion for summary judgment.

I think there’s virtually no chance of this case getting to trial. If Klouda survives summary judgment, then Patterson and SWBTS will probably settle. I just can’t see Patterson being willing to testify in open court.

I agree with everything Matt has said except for his next to last statement above, "I think there's virtually no chance of this case getting to trial."

I believe there is virtually no chance this case will not go to trial. This ruling virtually guarantees a jury trial in Texas before a courtroom of Dr. Klouda's peers. I would not want the job of SWBTS's defense attorneys. They must convince a jury that a woman, educated by Southwestern in Hebrew, hired by Southwestern to teach Hebrew, highly published in academia on the subject of Hebrew, and an exemplary and loyal employee of Southwestern was justly terminated by a new administration because she was a woman in a role reserved for men only - and it was a trustee mistake, albeit a unanimous one, to hire her originally.

Uh, oh.

Southwestern's trustees, if they knew of Klouda's removal, as claimed by trustee chairman Dr. Vann McClain, should have given long and careful thought about her removal for gender reasons. Or, as I believe, if the trustees of Southwestern had no clue that a female professor of Hebrew was being removed for gender reasons, then the trustees better do something very, very quickly to rectify their lack of oversight.

Either way, Southwestern will soon regret the day when they released probably the finest Hebrew scholar the Southern Baptist Convention has ever produced because she was a woman. One of these days trustees of our SBC agencies will learn you don't make decisions that affect the lives of people based upon a narrow ideology that is not held by the majority of Southern Baptists.

I just wish that leaders would begin to actively listen to Southern Baptists on these matters instead of being forced to listen to a judge.

In His Grace,


Wade

An Irony: We Once Thought the Indians Savages

'The Trail of Tears' (1838-1839) culminated in the relocation of over 20,000 Cherokee Indians from Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama and North Carolina to Northeastern Oklahoma. Estimates are that 4,000 Cherokee men, women and children died during The Trail of Tears. Upon settling in Oklahoma at an area called Park Hill, just outside of the present day city of Tahlequah, Oklahoma, the Cherokee Indians began to rebuild their nation. Within a decade of arriving in Oklahoma, around the same time the Southern Baptist Convention was being formed, the Cherokee people - with the help of missionary Samuel Worcester who came with the Cherokees to Oklahoma - began to establish a system of education for the Cherokee men - and women.

The Cherokee Female Seminary

In 1851 the Cherokees at Park Hill began a seminary for women, with rigorous curriculum, patterned after that of Mount Holyoke Female Seminary in Massachusetts. The seminary offered no instruction in Cherokee language or culture, but was open only to full- and mixed-blood Cherokee girls. The school was in operation until 1909 and approximately 3,000 girls attended. These women and their educational experiences greatly influenced the Cherokee Nation and the lives of their descendants. Students at the Cherokee Female Seminary took courses in Greek, Hebrew, Latin, political economy, literary criticism, theology, philosophy and other advanced academic courses. Pupils staged dramatic productions, held music recitals and published their own newsletter. The seminary building was eventually destroyed by fire, but three original columns from the building mark the entrance into the modern Cherokee Heritage Center.

The first woman to receive her Ph.D. in the United States of America, Miss Sarah Worcester, was a descendent of the founder of the Cherokee Female Seminary. Wilma Mankiller, the female Chief of the Cherokee Nation in the 1980's said this about the Cherokee Female Seminary . . .

"The Cherokee Female Seminary was among the first educational systems built west of the Mississippi - Indian or non-Indian. In fact, for a period of time during the mid-nineteenth century, the Cherokee population was more literate than the neighboring non-Indian population”

The Cherokees were so successful in educating Cherokee women through the Cherokee Female Seminary that some of the more traditional Cherokee men began to complain that the women were no longer suited for domestic chores. Eventually, the traditionalists were overruled and the Cherokee Female Seminary was folded into the Cherokee Men's Seminary which had been established in Tahlequah, Oklahoma and the combined schools became what we know today as Northeastern State University, one of oldest institutions of higher learning west of the Mississippi, and still the university with the highest concentration of Indian students in the United States.

Highly educated and theologically minded women in the United States is not a new phenomenon. In fact, it is interesting to compare the manner in which Southern Baptist women are treated in one of our seminaries today versus the vigorous rigors of academic training of Cherokee Indian women in 1851. Paul Littleton directed my attention to the following recent testimonial of a Southwestern Seminary student's wife.

“We have been out of Southwestern Seminary for a little over two years now. While we were there we saw many good things happen and met many good people. One of the things that I attempted while we were their, was to be a part of their Seminary Wives “club”. I was immediately turned off when I sat on the first night of the meetings and heard all that would happen in the upcoming semester. First, Dorothy Patterson wanted us seminary wives to pay and enroll as students in order to come to these meetings. Why you ask??? Because the more “students” that are enrolled, the better they (SWBTS) look to the Southern Baptist Convention. So here we all sat in this large room listening to Mrs. Patterson talk about how expensive it was to turn on lights in a building and how we should all be ashamed of ourselves if we decided to “audit” this “class” and not register for it because THAT wouldn’t help this seminary. The meeting went on to talk about topics that would be discussed over the next semester. They ranged from 'Taking Care of Your Home,' to 'Taking Care of Your Husband.' Both could be valuable things to hear someone speak on. Except 'Taking Care of Your Home' was about making your house perfect “looking” and being able to pour tea correctly, and 'Taking Care of Your Husband' was about ironing his handkerchief and packing his suit case correctly. Needless to say I was shocked.

In a day when some Southern Baptists seem to believe it is wrong to educate women in the classics, the languages, or Biblical theology - not to mention to employ women in teaching these subjects - it might be well for us all to remember the example of those evangelical, conservative Christian Indians who have gone before us.

No doubt there will be opposition by some when there they see an increasing number of theologically minded women in the Southern Baptist Convention or female Hebrew, Greek and theology professors given positions at Southern Baptist seminaries. A few might even wish to destroy the ministerial reputatation and careers of those Southern Baptists who affirm women in the highest of academic roles within the SBC. But, the negative reaction of some should never negate the positive results of what is accomplished through an intellectual and theologically minded populace of Southern Baptist females.

Davy Crockett was severely persecuted for standing up for the Cherokee people before Congress in the 1830's at Washington, D.C. Crockett's own political career was destroyed because he supported the Cherokees when everyone else wanted them out of sight and out of mind. Davy Crockett left Washington D. C. and eventually made his way west to Texas where he became a frontier hero and died at the Alamo. But before Crockett left the nation's capital he made a statement regarding his strong stand for the oppressed Cherokee Indians - a statement that is as appropriate today regarding women in Southern Baptist academia as it was in Crockett's day regarding the Cherokee people:

"I would sooner be honestly damned than hypocritically immortalized"

This Sooner couldn't agree more.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

The Silence That Sounds Serious at Southwestern

This morning I read a post by Paul Littleton over at SBC Outpost that reraised a couple of questions in my own mind about the ongoing Sheri Klouda incident at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas and the continuing implications for the Southern Baptist Convention and agency oversight.

I wrote in my initial post on the Klouda termination that Dr. Klouda had been hired unanimously as Professor of Hebrew by the Board of Trustees of SWBTS on June 24, 2003, only to be later forced out because 'she was a woman in a man's position.' When Dr. McClain, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees at Southwestern, gave an interview to a couple of news wires two days after my post first appeared, he said my blog post on Dr. Klouda's forced removal was 'filled with inaccuracies.' After repeated attempts to contact Chairman McClain by phone in order to speak with him personally about his statement to the press, I finally left a detailed message with his secretary. I told her that I would like to be informed specifically of the 'inaccuracies' in order to immediately correct them.
Five days later I was sent a short and abrupt email from Dr. McClain's office explaining his comment to the newspaper reporters. Dr. McClain's email contained these five words . . .

'Dr. Klouda was not hired unanimously.'

Subsequent to Chairman McClain's email I requested a copy of the minutes of the January 2003 SWBTS Board of Trustee meeting. I wanted to see for myself if Dr. Klouda's hiring, indeed, was NOT unanimous as Dr. McClain alleged. If Dr. McClain was correct, then the factual 'inaccuracy' in my post needed to be immediately corrected and I needed to publicly apologize. I assumed Dr. McClain had already backed off of the previous use of the word 'inaccuracies' since his email contained only one fact from my post that he was disputing. I knew my initial written statement on the vote count did not come from the SWBTS minutes - it came from the person who was present at the meeting and hired by SWBTS - Dr. Klouda herself. Could Dr. Klouda have been wrong?

When I attempted to obtain the minutes of that January 2003 SWBTS trustee meeting, I was told by the SWBTS Presidential office that I could not receive them. Even though the minutes were the approved, plenary session minutes of the SWBTS meeting when Dr. Klouda was hired, and even though the Southern Baptist Convention bylaws state every Southern Baptist entity shall send its' minutes to the Executive Committee, I was forbidden to see them. Paul Littleton posted today about his similar frustration as he sought to obtain those same SWBTS minutes for himself.

To this date I have not received the SWBTS minutes of that June 2003 trustee meeting, though I have asked both verbally and in writing that they be sent to me. However, I did have a SWBTS trustee call me and tell me that, contrary to statements to the press by SWBTS board leadership, my post was completely accurate, and the minutes would reveal that Dr. Klouda was hired unanimously.

As I see it, the administration and leadership of the SWBTS Board of Trustees are making a huge mistake. I am not convinced the entire SWBTS board is fully aware of the difficult moral and legal predicament in which they have been placed through misleading statements to the press by SWBTS administration and board leadership. I have friends on the SWBTS board who I am sure are completely in the dark regarding the handling of the Klouda situation. Yet, what concerns me is the implication by SWBTS adminstration and board leadership that the entire board was fully informed and consented to the direction of SWBTS administration in forcing out Klouda because she was a woman. According to the Associated Press, which cites court papers that have been filed, Dr. Klouda was removed from her position because "Dr. Klouda was a mistake that the trustees needed to fix."

Two questions come to my mind when I read statements about Dr. Klouda being a 'trustee mistake' that needed to be fixed. (1). Is it possible for the entire body of SWBTS trustees to vote 'unanimously' in hiring Dr. Klouda, and for that same board to later call their unanimous decision 'a mistake'? Surely there is at least one trustee who was confident he did the right thing when he voted to hire Dr. Klouda. Or, (2). Could it be that when Sheri Klouda was forced to leave Southwestern, only the SWBTS adminstration was involved in the decision, and the trustees of SWBTS were not even informed?

The answer to the second question according to board leadership, specifically Chairman Dr. McClain, is 'no.' He has publicly stated that all the SWBTS trustees were kept fully informed by the President of SWBTS. However, I have had at least a half dozen SWBTS trustees tell me they had no clue about Klouda's forced removal, much less the reasoning behind why a unanimous action of the Board of Trustees needed to be 'corrected.' Again, if a 'trustee mistake' were being 'corrected,' then there should be a public record of where the detailed explanation is given to the trustees as to why their unanimous decision was a mistake. In addition, there should also be a recording in the minutes of the trustees 'vote' to correct their mistake.

What complicates the matter for SWBTS is the fact that Dr. Klouda's personnel file and job evaluations prior to her removal are stellar. Her exemplary work record and personnel file negates any attempt by someone to say she was removed for reasons other than gender. The multi-million dollar question is this: Did the trustees of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary believe they made a mistake when they hired a female Hebrew professor in June of 2003, and did they, through informed consent, vote to reverse their mistake?

I firmly believe any examination of the minutes of SWBTS will show that the SWBTS trustees, in spite of statements to the contrary to the press by board leadership, were never informed of the steps taken to remove Klouda. I would be more than happy to be corrected in my assessment - and this can easily be done by providing the minutes of the trustee meetings. Yet, nobody is able to confirm or deny what actually happened in SWBTS trustee meetings regarding the Sheri Klouda situation because nobody in administration or board leadership is willing to let Southern Baptists see the minutes.

I am convinced that operating an SBC agency in this manner must change. Ironically, when SWBTS's leadership refuses to listen to Southern Baptists dressed in suits, ties and dresses who politely ask for information, they may end up listening to non-Southern Baptists dressed in robes who aren't so much asking for information as they are mandating change and decreeing penalties.

In His Grace,

Wade