"I went to Jerusalem to become acquainted (Gk. istoria) with Cephas" - Paul's words from Galatians 1:18.

If You Won't Let a Woman Teach Men Hebrew, You Best Teach That Woman to Bake Men Cakes

Gary Ledbetter, the editor of The Southern Baptist Texan, has written an opinion piece on the Southwestern Baptist Theological new undergraduate degree in homemaking entitled A Silly, Dangerous Idea? Gary's opening paragraph contains these words:

When the news media want to ask someone about a homemaking course at a Southern Baptist seminary, where do they go? Well, naturally, they turn to an unmarried pastor and a formerly Southern Baptist liberal whose work is largely dedicated to berating the SBC and its leaders. Maybe they are the only ones who don’t get it.

Since Gary does not wish to identify the two people to whom he refers, I will not to do so either. However, I would like to point out what I believe to be a flaw in Mr. Ledbetter's logic. Gary implies that criticisms of the SWBTS homemaking degree program from a "single" person and a "liberal" person are both unreliable. The sources, according to the logic of Mr. Ledbetter, are unworthy because they either have never experienced marriage or have a philosophical bias against conservative theology. However, that kind of thinking is inherently dangerous because it lends itself toward theological inbreeding. Think with me for a moment about ridiculing any criticism on the basis of 'They are not one of us or can't understand us.'

With that logic no married couple would ever ask Jesus or the Apostle Paul what they think about marriage because they were never married - and can't relate. Nobody would ever ask Christians what we think about abortion because we have never experienced the process. Nobody would ever ask a conservative pastor what he thinks of higher criticism because he doesn't believe in it- or use it - and is not sympathetic to liberal theology. Ironically, if this kind of logic were to be followed, then the editors of the Southern Baptist Texan and Baptist Press would never again write any article expressing criticism against homosexuality or the gay agenda since both aforementioned magazines are "conservative" and can't understand liberalism.

The premise of Mr. Ledbetter's opinion piece is illogical - unless you intend to remain entrenched in a polarizing viewpoint that categorically rejects any criticism from people "not like us." We must be careful that there does not form within the SBC an oligarchy of leadersip that expresses by fiat what is, and is not, appropriate for the entire convention. Left unchallenged, the SBC could quickly move toward quirky religious traditions. As Steve Hays says,

When a particular tradition enjoys an unchallenged monopoly, it becomes inbred and overbred—like a hairless dog the size of a kitten. Isolated theological traditions either go from good to bad or bad to worse. It’s only a matter of time before rite makes right.

A woman who invests her life being a homemaker ought to be praised. There is nothing wrong with a Southern Baptist woman bucking the cultural trend and spending her time caring for her husband, children and home. We who believe in the family laud such choices.

On the other hand, seminary is not a place to teach homemaking - even in the form of undergraduate degrees. It is an insitution of higher education for the purpose of theological education. It is a place for men and women to learn the languages, theology and the Bible - and in the opinion of many, including both conservatives and liberals, married and single, pastors and laymen, men and women, Southwestern Theological Seminary reduces her prestige and significance as a world class theological institution by bestowing homemaking degrees.

On the other hand if you won't let a woman teach men Hebrew, then you best teach that woman to bake men cupcakes.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

226 comments:

1 – 200 of 226   Newer›   Newest»
Blackhaw said...

intersting post. I agree that some single people can talk about marraige. I think only some and most only certain parts should be discussed. But no one can walk in anyone elses shoes so just becasue someone is not married does not automatically exclude him or her from speaking about marriage.

I agree with what you said about those that disagree. WE should listen to them and just because they disagree it should not exclude them from being part of the discussion.

However (you knew there woud be a however) I think what Ledbetter is speaking aobut when he states about the media:

"naturally, they turn to an unmarried pastor and a formerly Southern Baptist liberal whose work is largely dedicated to berating the SBC and its leaders."

is that the only person they turn to seems to have a real agenda against not only conservative theology but SBC theology and leadership. So I cna see his point. If they got John MacArthur to say bad things about hte homemaking degree it would carry more weight. Just like if Frank Page said something negative about Paige Patterson it would carry more weight than if Ben Cole or you do it. My point here is not to speak about BC except that everyone knows that he has often criticized Patterson. And BC could be said to be on the opposite side of Patterson in the recent debates. But Frank Page has been either on Patterson's side or neutral. So if he said something it would be more important and not just because he is the SBC president.

What I am trying to say is that I do not pay much attention when a Democrat criticizes the Preseident because that is what they do. But if a republican does it then I take more notice.

Does that make sense? Overall though I understand your concens also.

BH-CARL

Christa Brown said...

Wade,
Thanks for an insightful post. I was struck by Mr. Ledbetter's mockery of "the egalitarian worldview" of "the liberal." Though Southern Baptists may recognize differing roles, I thought even the most conservative of Southern Baptists were resolved back in 1984 as to the "equal dignity of men and women." Why would anyone think "egalitarianism" was a purely "liberal" notion? Aren't we all God's children?

CB Scott said...

Wade,

I did not care much for the Ledbettr article. He builds "strawmen" that just will not stand or can be very divisive.

Your post relating to the Ledbetter article brings out the reality of what I said about it on Bart Barber's blog. Frankly, Gary could have done a better job of promoting the program without mentioning single pastors, liberals, secular institutions or sodomites.

You say you are not for the program in a seminary setting. You give your reasons. Nothing inflammatory was in the content.

I support the program due to my experience with seminary students. It is needed in a way that was not so in the past. I have posted of those needs so there is no need to go back over them here.

With all the above stated, I'll come to my point for this comment. I think women should be able to teach Hebrew or any other language in seminary. She should also bake a cake it she wants to do so.

I think she should be able to learn to teach Hebrew in seminary and get a job teaching in one if she is good at such a vocation. I also think a woman should be able to learn to bake a cake at seminary if she wants, and if she wants to stay at home and bake them she should be free to do so. If she wants to open a bakery and sell the cakes she learned to bake in seminary she should be free to do so.

A woman should be able to teach Hebrew or learn to bake cakes in seminary due to the fact that both can be done as unto the Lord. I believe God can receive glory from both and does.

cb

Pamela said...

Offering a homemaking degree is absolutely INSANE. My parents taught me that stuff when I grew up. I have male friends that were taught by their parents how to iron clothes that do a better job than I do. If there are PEOPLE in the church that want to learn how to cook set up a cooking class. I'm sure many churches offer courses in parenting if some parents are struggling. Why have people spend hundreds of dollars in college to teach someone how to cook, clean house, tuck a child in bed, etc.????? What utter nonsense.

Seminaries, Bible schools and the like are to train five-fold ministers. IMHO this is nothing more than trying to make a religious/political statement about what they feel women should be doing. If the Christian university I attended offered such nonsense when I attended or decided to in the future I would laugh them to scorn as I submitted my views to my alumni organization.

The comments about people coming against this being 'single' shows his utter comtempt for singles, particulary single women. We have absolutely no value and are second class until we marry. I thank God that the church I attend (non-SBC) would not tolerate such utter prejudice. In fact this past Sunday the pastor and another minister felt led of the Lord to specifically minister to those of us that desire to marry. They even had an altar call to pray for guidance and direction for us. I so appreciated that. Many of us want to marry and they recognized that. We are not just up here railing against traditional marriage.

How dare such comments be made about singles. Like a single person cannot have a desire to have a more traditional household. NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. I am a confident single female that is thoroughly enjoying her walk with the Lord. I have no encumbrances at all. HOWEVER when I marry my hope and prayer is that the man I marry can financial support the household. I love to cook and when I marry I relish the idea of cooking to my hearts content. I do not know of a single female that wants to run the house.

This is utter nonsense.

Pastor Wade thanks for being a minister that has some sense along with a heart for God.

Wade Burleson said...

Carl,

You say, "Frank Page has been either on Patterson's side or neutral" and therefore anything he has to say about Paige carries more weight.

Have you ever thought about the fact that once anybody says anything that is either not neutral or positive then that does not automatically make him a part of an enemy camp - unless the persons who are the recepients of the criticism declare them the enemy?

Have you ever thought about the fact that anybody who is now speaking out in the SBC may have been very affirming of the conservative resurgence, and the fact that they are now expressing their views of the excesses of the resurgence does not necessarily make them negative to what happened in previous decades in the SBC?

Have you ever asked yourself what has happened to all the men of courage who say what needs to be said regardless of the consequences?

Have you ever asked yourself why some may be silent in their criticisms of the excesses or mistakes of denominational hierarchy - but freely express their criticism of people who are not part of denominational hiearchy? Dr. Boyd Luter calls it, insightfully I might add, a double standard.

Just some food for your thought.

By the way, I would consider Paige a friend and have called him on two separate occasions in the last few months to have lunch. And during the Klouda situation, I called repeatedly to try to resolve it through meeting with him to present a solution.

Wade Burleson said...

CB,

Thanks for your well thought out and articulated comment.

Thou almost persuadest me to agree.

Then I read the first paragraph of Pamela's comment and remain convinced.

:)

Blackhaw said...

Wade,

I think we got off in this thread on the wrong footing. The only thing I was saying is that you and Patterson disagree. But Frank Page is so far neutral or maybe on Patterson's side of the debate. I am not saying either side is evil or enemies. I am just saying that I do not take so much notice when you disagree with Patteson but if Frank Page did then I would take notice. That was all I was trying to say. Forget what I have said about BC for now. I stand by what I have said but I am not trying to speak about him in this thread. I am making a concious attempt to not talk about him. I was only trying to make a point that often people believe less those who argue against another often (whether they or should not is not my point) when they are criticizing that other person compared to one that has been in the past neutral or on the side of the other.

To take it away from SBC life and to an even better example was the example of the difference of republicans and democrats criticizing the president. Democrats do it all the time thus I do not take notice of it as much as when a republican (who is usually pro-republican President) criticizes him.

Does that help? Again I am not criticizing you or BC. I am just trying to show why I think Ledbetter said what he did. And I kind of agree with him on that point. Now whether or not there should be a homaking degree or concentration is another thing which I was not speaking about.

BH- CARL

Blackhaw said...

One more thing. I am not saying Frank Page is not your friend or anything like that. I was just saying that he has not come out against Patterson or other current SBC leaders. Thus he has remained neutral or maybe because of his silence and what he has had to say about Outpost is on the other side. But that does not mean he is not your friend or even BC's friend. Really my reply had nothing to do with who was a friend of whom. It was more of what stand Dr. Page hass publicly taken on the idea of change in the SBC.


BH

CB Scott said...

Wade,

The problem with you is that you are married to a woman that can do all those things taught in the degree program and is also capable of being a professional person in any field she chooses.

Therefore your opinion is void due to marriage. :-)

cb

Wade Burleson said...

Carl,

Thanks for your comment. I am indifferent over whether or not you are criticizing me. That's not my point.

I am suggesting that anyone who speaks out against something in the SBC should not be considered the enemy. "Faithful are the wounds of a friend."

Blesssings,

Wade

Anonymous said...

You said:

A woman who invests her life being a homemaker ought to be praised.

While I understand what you are saying, I believe there is a false dichotomy that needs to be addressed in this discussion. I, and multitudes of other working women, am also a homemaker. I would be willing to wager that your wife, who I believe is a nurse, is also in charge of making your home a nice place to be. Every person needs to be taught lessons in home management: cooking, cleaning, balancing a checkbook, yardwork, basic home repair and everything else that goes along with becoming a responsible adult. No one reaches adulthood with all these skills intact. The courses at Southwestern seem better suited to be some sort of club that encourages young couples who are setting up home for the first time rather than an academic curriculum. To be opposed to this program is NOT the same as opposing the teaching of things like how to plan a nutritional menu for your family.

When my children were preschoolers, I stayed home with them. As they grew older, I gradually re-entered the workforce until I worked full time. But I never stopped being a homemaker.

Sheila

Blackhaw said...

Wade,

True. What else can I say in reply?

BH

Wade Burleson said...

Sheila,

I see your point, but I would say you deserve praise as well.

Maybe I should have said, 'Those women who invest their lives to 'solely' being a homemaker . . ."

Debbie Kaufman said...

To be opposed to this program is NOT the same as opposing the teaching of things like how to plan a nutritional menu for your family.

Exactly Sheila. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

A thought?? While at SWBTS seminary student's wives were encouraged to work in the offices and do support work on campus...for this full time work their husbands were given tuition free credits. Many wives placed their children in day care and struggled on the small salary paid by SWBTS. I watched them put in their hours and struggle to keep their families together. This approach to "Biblical Wives" ??? by SWBTS always left me wondering and now they are offering Homemaker courses??? hmmm. Perhaps some of the money from that new chapel could be used to help struggling students and allow wives to become the homemakers that everyone wants them to be??? Would this not be a better solution than offering a course??
Just thinking...hmmm

Blackhaw said...

Anonymous as a poor SWBTS student I think your plan is great. My wife wants to stay at home but we are having a very tough time trying to let her be able to do it. And you know I do not think we need another chapel.

bh

davidbmclaughlin.com said...

"HOWEVER when I marry my hope and prayer is that the man I marry can financial support the household."

pamela,
better not marry a seminary student! that might exclude a lot of pastors too!

:)

ml said...

Wade is this what you are trying to avoid or correct in our convention?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

I suspect it is?

Anonymous said...

Probably, more seminary women already can bake cakes than seminary men can change brakes. Probably, the seminary women did lots of baking--and other household-type chores--prior to completing their undergrad degrees and lots more while completing those degrees. Probably, the focus on homemaking is much less needed among women than it thought--but a focus on brake jobs done by seminary men seems like a good idea.


David

Anonymous said...

Corrections:

"Probably, more seminary women already can bake cakes than seminary men can change brakes. Probably, the seminary women did lots of baking--and other household-type chores--prior to STARTING their undergrad degrees and lots more while completing those degrees. Probably, the focus on homemaking is much less needed among women than IS thought--but a focus on LEARNING TO DO brake jobs done by seminary men seems like a good idea.

Anonymous said...

We need to remember that these classes are not mandatory. Women elect to take these classes if THEY choose to pursue the homemaker concentration. In effect, the classes are electives. I have no problems with our Bible colleges providing basic skills for women that may not have gotten them at home.

Doing this at church would work as well, but is it really such a travesty that the courses are being offered for college credit? This is college after all. People take bowling classes at universities around the country FOR CREDIT. These universities' credibility is not called into question question. Ever look at the electives offered at good ol' OU? The only reason SWBTS's credibility is being called into question is because you and Ben insist on harping on a non-issue so much.

This isn't a worthy topic, Wade. Let it go. I thought the issue was cooperation. Are you saying you cannot cooperate with churches and their trustees that may actually want their Bible colleges to offer such classes? It sure sounds that way.

My suggestion is that you quit sniping at the periphery and focus on the main issues that initially brought your ministry into the limelight. Every rabbit you chase takes you further away from the trail.

You are beginning to hurt your credibility.

C in Ind

Alan Paul said...

Ledbetter is beholden to the old guard. He doesn't have his own opinions - or at least he is not permitted to make them known (if they differ). What did you expect him to say? He is there to spout the party line and then take the heat for doing so instead the kings that rule his world. This is not surprising - other than the fact that his logic is so astoundingly ridiculous.

Wade Burleson said...

C in Indiana,

When restitution and restoration is made to Dr. Klouda the matter will be closed with me. Not until then. The trustees would never had heard a peep from me regarding hte new homemaker program were it not for the Klouda issue

Wade Burleson said...

Ml,

Both avoid and correct where it exists.

ABOUT A18 said...

I find it so hard to see why this course is such a controversy amongst conservatives. My wife, who is a very intellectual lady with her own degree, would be one of the first to say that such a course is so desperately needed. She shared with me how shocked she was to find out the the basics of homemaking were so foreign to many women she met. Granted she learned much of this at home growing up (as all education was ideally meant to be though it doesn't exclusively have to be), but this is a different world and culture. I applaud SWBTS for thinking "outside the box". I mean, my goodness, what harm can it really do. At worse the world mocks us and thinks we are silly. So? I think mockery from the world is expected no matter what believers do.
The fact is there is a difference between believing a course like this should never be taught and believing a course like this should never be taught at a seminary. I for one could care less. But I believe many who are simply saying the latter are giving the world the impression they are saying the first.

Trust me, there are grander things we should be attacking and pulling our hair out about. This is not one of them. Let's move on to more important issues.

But avoid foolish debates, genealogies, quarrels, and disputes about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.
Titus 3:9 (HCSB)

Rob Ayers said...

Wade,

I will attempt to ram the barricade a bit. As an observer, I would note that Gary did not use the word "unreliable." That word is your interpretation. It is gained I suspect by Gary's reference to the married status of one critic, and the ideology of the other. If I were to use words in description of my interpretation of the first paragraph, I would use the word "ignorant" in one respect and "biased" in the other. The unmarried person is "ignorant" of married life, and both are "biased" against the leadership of the SBC, and in particular of SWBTS. But we probably will never know the intent of Mr. Ledbetter unless we ask him.

I believe that Brother Scott's response is cogent, and would claim it for myself. Your response was to point to Patricia's first paragraph whose first sentence was, "Offering a homemaking degree is absolutely INSANE." Who has insane ideas save for insane people? This is a classical argumentum ad hominem (abusive). While Gary Ledbetter starts off with such an argument (which receives a negative response from you which forces you ignore the rest of his discussion as "illogical") Patricia's use of the same type of argumentation receives no discussion or derision. In fact, you ignore the abuse, and agree with the substance of her first paragraph. Whom you agree or disagree with is no account to me - it just strikes me as being just blind, and makes your stated mission of bringing the SBC into dialogue just a little more further out of reach.

Can people disagree about important issues without being referred to as "insane"? If the desire is to have a discussion, I would not begin by calling those who disagree as being "insane." Your silence to Patricia's first sentence reveals much and is golden - Qui tacet consentire videtur. Can you then really complain if Gary Ledbetter uses the same type of augmentation?

Rob

Rob Ayers said...

So my brother,

What we have here is an ongoing crusade. A crusade to keep the pressure upon the administration and the trustees of SWBTS to deal with Dr. Klouda. As soon as that is done with, then the pressure will be off. My question to you is - at what cost?

To a person who proclaims allegiance to a Reformed position, you have little sympathy it seems in allowing God and justice to work in their honorable course. The case is before the courts. It just seems to me that God does not need help in seeing justice done. And if it is not in this world - and God waits to serve justice at His bar - will we fail to continue to serve God in the here and now?

One of the greatest tragedies contained in the biblical text was when Abram in a moment of weakness followed the counsel of his wife and conceived a child with her maidservant. What human misery the world could have saved itself if the conflict between Ishmael and Isaac had never developed? What Abraham failed to consider was the law of unintended consequences. I implore you to consider the same, my brother.

Rob

Debbie Kaufman said...

Why is it that I find it hard to believe that the art of homemaking is foreign to women today? I must live in 2 states in which the women know how to cook, clean and care for children because both Kansas and Oklahoma, seem to have a high degree of women, even professionals who do know the art of homemaking. Now do they go as far as Dorothy Patterson does in her knowledge? Probably not, but isn't homemaking as individual as say any other form of doing a job? I hear this argument but I just can't buy it.How in the world have women been doing it before the SWBTS program?

Anonymous said...

I agree Wade...Dr. Clouda...taught my husband two semesters of Hebrew in 9 weeks and did it well!! No one could have done the job better! I imagine she minds her homefront just as well...Double standards at SWBTS need to stop. Look at the whole picture folks-Again SWBTS encourage wives to work for a penance and sacrafice family and home for their cause-then turn around and say look at us we are offering homemakers class-please...What about the class "Dorthoy" taught telling women how to pack their husbands suitcase for a trip???? Dr. Clouda is a woman, a wife, a mother, a scholar and one remarkable teacher! There are those at SWBTS who have made a mockery of what Biblical principals stand for.
This isn't about cupcakes fellas this is about the decline of a great Theological institute which has fallen victim to the powers to be ego and lust for power. By the way I am a homemaker-have been for 36 years! Love it! But I can have my cupcake and eat it too! thank you~tr ps-my husband done brakes!

Anonymous said...

Correction-thank you~tr ps-my husband has done brakes!

Wade Burleson said...

Rob,

My dear brother. The opportunity to make things right with Dr. Klouda was available, including repeated attempts to make a proposal in order to rectify the wrong - to no avail.

I refuse to stand by while someone is mistreated. Sheri Klouda was mistreated and nobody would respond to repeated requests to meet to make proper resititution.

Your question of 'at what cost' should have been considered prior to her dismissal by the very people who dismissed her.

Anonymous said...

debbie~here is a thought~Dorthoy Patterson has a housekeeper, a cook and some one to do her bills. Now I ask is this homemaking? Not where I come from! tr

CB Scott said...

Rob,

Abraham committed sin against God with a lack of faith. Please tell me what Dr. Klouda's sin was? Such a comparison is without merit here. What happened to her was wrong. Are we not to speak up when such a wrong happens among us? Dr. Patterson did back during the Resurgence and rightfully so.

Wrong is still wrong and right is still right. To speak up is still proper no matter on which "side of the road" the wrongful party lives.

Debbie,

Would it help if I showed you pictures proving why this degree is needed. In truth, I wish I could show them to you, but it would be improper of me to do so.

I can tell you that due to seminary students not knowing how (or not caring how) to take care of their homes and families it has cost a great sum in CP dollars. It is truly unbelieveable.

cb

Bowden McElroy said...

Re: "seminary is not a place to teach homemaking - even in the form of undergraduate degrees."

Our SBC seminaries is not a place for undergraduate colleges. Here's the worrisome trend:

1. We don't like the quality of the state convention's colleges so we'll start our own that we have control over.

2. We don't like the doctrines of some SBC churches so we'll declare them "harmful" and discourage debate and discourse.

3. We don't want women teaching doctrine to men so we'll do an about face on tenure for a women.

4. We do want women at home so we'll offer a homemaking option for them.

Any one of these would be problematic; taken as a whole the trend is alarming.

Chad said...

Wade, Thanks for a great a well thought post that has bothered many of us. I hope we can focus on what the seminary is for. Thank you.

Lin said...

"It just seems to me that God does not need help in seeing justice done. And if it is not in this world - and God waits to serve justice at His bar - will we fail to continue to serve God in the here and now? "

Hmmm. By that logic then Paul, et.al., wasted lots of time writing the Epistles to instruct the 'Body'.

jthomas899 said...

Where did Gary say that women are not equal?

Kerygma said...

Is both spouses want to bake, does the wife have to submit to the husband's recipe?

Kerygma said...

If

Anonymous said...

Wade Burleson said...
C in Indiana,
"When restitution and restoration is made to Dr. Klouda the matter will be closed with me. Not until then. The trustees would never had heard a peep from me regarding hte new homemaker program were it not for the Klouda issue"

How petty of you Wade. You actually think that you are going to rectify or assist in resolving the Klouda matter in court or outside of court with this post and the language in your message above to C in Indiana? Furthermore, do you think the trustees are going to value your opinion with this type of attitude? If you are going to take this tact, where we you on CA committee when a wrong was being done and you had the information and ability to help restore and even avoid that situation? Yes, you can hide behind the appropriate veil of privacy in that issue but you know you were wrong in that issue and to hear you pontificate about Klouda and use a post like this one to try to sway opinion is just wrong.

ml said...

For those who may not have followed my earlier link here are the symptoms of groupthink--the tendency described by Wade and illustrated by Gary Ledbetter [BTW couldnt he get a better picture that the one they use in the paper?]

1. A feeling of invulnerability creates excessive optimism and encourages risk taking.
2. Discounting warnings that might challenge assumptions.
3. An unquestioned belief in the group’s morality, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.
4. Stereotyped views of enemy leaders.
5. Pressure to conform experienced by members of the group who might otherwise disagree.
6. Shutting down of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
7. An illusion of unanimity with regards to going along with the group.
8. Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting opinions.

Here are the safeguards against groupthink:

1. Leaders should assign each member the role of “critical evaluator”. This allows each member to freely air objections and doubts.
2. Higher-ups should not express an opinion when assigning a task to a group.
3. The organization should set up several independent groups, working on the same problem.
4. All effective alternatives should be examined.
5. Each member should discuss the group's ideas with trusted people outside of the group.
6. The group should invite outside experts into meetings. Group members should be allowed to discuss with and question the outside experts.
7. At least one group member should be assigned the role of Devil's advocate. This should be a different person for each meeting.

Could you imagine our SBC leaders taking such a position? It would mean losing their top down supremacy and not getting the chance to play god with peoples lives, thoughts, interpretations, etc.

Anonymous said...

Regarding this whole homemaking "flap" at SWBTS:

Brother Wade makes some great points, and I would agree that it's not a good program for a SEMINARY.

Brother CB also defends the need for such training and, apparently, has first had experiences with the need for such training. Agreed.

SOLUTION: If we can agree that not all women (or men) who desire to cook, sew, etc. can or do receive such training in the home, then maybe there is a need for the SBC (and her institutions) to fill the gap. Why not offer low-cost or NO-cost programs for women and men on our seminary campuses. Not for credit at the seminary, but merely for the edification of the home. Wouldn't that end this whole argument? (probably not! lol).

Charles Brazeale
Neosho, MO

Wade Burleson said...

Charles Brazeale,

I think your idea is wonderful and I have a host of women in my church who would volunteer their time, travel and hotel accomodations to teach this to seminary wives if asked.

Let's, however, not charge tuition for those women who need the service.

Anonymous said...

How many are actually in the program?

Instead of spending 150 bucks an hour (plus books, tuition, fees, etc...) on a homemaking degree, why don't you hire a maid and go volunteer in the inner city...sharing the gospel and helping the poor.

JR

Bennett Willis said...

If you are trying to find someone who is willing to criticize any of the SBC management, you are going to have to look outside that management. We've all seen (or heard of) what happens to people who criticize the SBC management in any significant way about anything. Why would anyone other than those horrid liberals and babbling bloggers want to be quoted being critical of our management? The penalties are just too great.

Bennett Willis

davidbmclaughlin.com said...

Why does it seem to be an assumption that it is the woman's place to "keep/make the home"?

Where in scripture does it say the woman's job is to do the dishes and laundry? This is nonsense.

I love Charles's take. How about an FPU like course in our churches for men and women to learn how to make the home? Better yet, why not just play some old videos of Martha Stewart's tv show?

Anonymous said...

Has any of you spoken to anyone in the undergraduate humanities program and asked them why they are enrolled in the homemaking minor? It seems to me that this information would be an important part of this discussion. Instead of dragging Dr. Klouda into this issue why can't you look at those who desire to study at SWBTS and see what their goals are after graduation and how they expect this minor concentration in humsnities to play into their future ministy.

Anonymous said...

I think the irony here is that NAMB has strongly persuaded so many wives to get out and work, because under the 2+2 seminary program, the husband church planter cannot have a job on the side. This is one of the reasons my wife and decided not to plant a church, because with 4 kids, we wanted them to have a mom at home.

Of the church planters I know that have participated in the Nehemiah project, most wives have been forced by circumstance (and encouraged by NAMB) to get jobs, no matter how many children. Perhaps we could send NAMB supervisors to get this degree at SWBTS.

Rob Ayers said...

CB,

The comparison I was making with the Abraham analogy was not with Dr. Klouda. Goodness gracious, what sin indeed did she commit? Her case demands justice - and justice she will receive one way or the other - that is if her supporters and counselors will not continue to muddy the waters.

My analogy was directly aimed at her supporters as represented by this post - who would use any and all means including attacking the current administration for any and all decisions that are deemed "insane" or inappropriate at any level for the sake of changing their position in respect to Dr. Klouda - and if they do the dogs will be called off. This also includes the secular media to pressure SWBTS into capitulation.

This in my opinion is not merely voicing disagreement - it is fomenting bad publicity against not only SWBTS but also against all Southern Baptists and cooperating churches. Perhaps you see no problem in using the methods of Marxist dialectic in difference to settling matters in a Christlike way that honors God. There is a reason why "utilitarianism" is referred to in most quarters as "subversive."

Many of those who would have supported Dr. Klouda within our Convention now lukewarm at best because of the methods that are being employed on her behalf. I don't know how it is looking in your part of the world, but in mine Wade and company has lost any credibility and capital he once owned because of this. As the result, Dr. Klouda's case has suffered in the eyes of a lot of Southern Baptists - even among those who would have supported her. Is this the consequence that you folks desired? Goodness, I hope not.

Rob

greg.w.h said...

Anonymous (might I add that if you lack the conviction to put your name on a post, you don't really deserve a serious response...but here goes):

Might I offer that the correct approach to changing the mission of a seminary is to report out to the Convention at the Annual Meeting a recommendation for changing that mission and have the Convention ratify that recommendation on the floor? In fact, the entire College at Southwestern (and the similar one at Southeastern) should probably have been approved by the Convention as it represents a significant change in mission for SWBTS. It is a THEOLOGICAL Seminary, after all (note the T in SWBTS, as well as SEBTS, GGBTS, NOBTS, MWBTS, and SBTS).

Perhaps our presidents should be guided to keep the educational institutions they lead on mission? If we can't make that work, then the biblical location of the teaching of pastors should be used instead: the local ekklesia.

Feel free to ask Jerry Rankin why the Indonesian Mission shut down the Semarang campus in the early 70s. You'll should find his response insightful if not thought provoking.

Greg Harvey

Wayne Smith said...

Wade,
I’ am not For or AGAINST the homemaking course to be taught at SWBTS. I would think these things would have been taught in the Home to both Boys and Girls.

Has anyone come to realize that this course is being used to Justify a Position for a Woman Professor, who happen to be is on Staff?

This is a Big Smoke Screen, because of Sheri Klouda’s being Fired!!!
In His Name

Wade Burleson said...

Greg Harvey,

One of the most profound comments I've read on this blog.

Lee said...

I sure wish people would learn the definition of the terms they want to throw around, like "liberal" for example, before they use it as a label.

Considering the source, there's not much in Ledbetter's editorializing that is worth reading. It's pretty simple to figure out.

1. Anyone who criticizes something a specific conservative resurgene leader does is automatically a liberal.

2. Anyone in the secular media is automatically anti-conservative, anti-Christian and a liberal.

3. Liberal bad. Conservative good.

End of story.

Of course, Ledbetter himself is the media. But then, I don't think anyone has ever accused him of being a good journalist.

Anonymous said...

CB,

I am still trying to find the mandate for the high standard of living that you feel seminary students should maintain. Is this to prepare them to be the self-righteous, apparently sinless facades we see filling the pulpits these days? Those preparing to serve the church must learn how to maintain appearances!

ABOUT A18 said...

David Mclaughlin,

To answer your question:
"Therefore, I want younger widows to get married, bear children, keep house, and give the enemy no occasion for reproach; for some have already turned aside to follow Satan. 1 Tim 5:14-15 (NASB)

Keep House: interpret that however you want but nonetheless it is in Scripture.

Anonymous said...

Seems like many on this blog have esp because they are able to judge people's motives.

What happens when the people who speak against fundamentalists become fundamentalists in speaking against fundamentalist?

I have posted anonymous for the sake of Greg.

Anonymous said...

Greg, Do you chasten all who post anonymous or just those you disagree with?

Wade Burleson said...

Anonymous,

You wish not the impeccable logic and excoriating response from Greg?

I don't blame you.

:)

Stay anonymous. You can't handle Greg.

CB Scott said...

Rob,

I stand down in my mistake about a comparison of Abraham and Dr. Klouda. I am sorry.

I do want to say that I know, for a fact, that had not Wade and others taken up Dr. Klouda's cause it would have been buried in a grave with wrongful dirt shoveled over it. Our history proves such.


Anony who addressed me,

If you think I am speaking to the issue of this degree so somebody will be able to "maintain appearances" I urge you to maintain you anonymous identity and go back into your unknown hole in the ground and pull the dirt in behind you. No one else needs to catch whatever it is you have.

cb

Anonymous said...

This is only the second time I have ever posted on a blog. The first time was the question I posted above. I have chosen to remain anonymous because I don't think that it matters who I am or what my gender is or to what denomination or church I belong.

The majority of the posts that I have read- here and elsewhere- actually have very little to do with the people that are participating in this program.

I would like to pose the question again- Have any of you spoken to anyone in the homemaking program and asked them why they have chosen to attend Southwestern?

For the record, I have.

They are attending for a variety of reasons:
1. The minor in this bachelor degree is is similar to majors offered in Family and Consumer Science (FCS) programs in secular colleges but with a Biblical base. This allows women who want to pursue the opportunity to teach FCS with a Biblical foundation.
2. When living in a third world country as a missionary, single or married, it is to a persons benefit to have knowledge
of nutrition and clothing construction as those things are essential to daily life in a mission setting.
3. Ministry in the local church through food distribution programs and childcare asssistance requires a basic knowledge of food and nutrition as well as child development and a scriptural view of said child's value is helpful.
4. Last but not least, to better to prepare themselves to support their husbands in whatever ministry that the Lord leads them to do.

Wake up! This is about a whole lot more than who is going to Seminary to become Mrs. Suzy Homemaker. It is about young women who want to minister to their families and their communties in ways that scripture supports and encourages whether bloggers like it or not.

Give them the opportunity to learn without your opinion of Dr. Klouda's situation, Dr.s Patterson and what you think of them, or what your opinion of how 'easy' it is to run a household being thrown into the discussion.

They are the ones being effected by the vitriolic statements. Is that what you would want for your wife or daughter as they pursue the course of study to which the Lord has led them? It's too bad that the most supportive views of this program have come from those posting on the MSN blog and the most destructive statements have come from fellow Christians.

davidbmclaughlin.com said...

About A18,
Thanks, but does 1 Timothy preclude the man from keeping the house?

greg.w.h said...

I have Good News for our anouma:

"17He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give some of the hidden manna. I will also give him a white stone with a new name written on it, known only to him who receives it."

Rev 2:17 (NIV...but, trust me, every version has "onoma kainon" in it.)

greg.w.h

Anonymous said...

I'm married. I'm in my forties and have both graduate and undergraduate degrees--earned later in life.

Excuse me for posting anonymously. I would rather focus on the ISSUE at hand rather than denominational politics.

Early in life I decided the Proverbs woman was indeed a very busy person. How that translated to me personally was that whatever I chose to do, I needed to do it with God's bidding and do it well. I worked at a variety of flexible jobs while my children were in gradeschool. When they started high school, I started teaching. When they went on to college, I finally took a full-time job in ministry. I miss some flexibility and I really enjoy hosting events and family get-togethers. Most of all, however, I realize in watching my twenty-something daughter and daughter in law, how much I took for granted about how much my mother and grandmother taught me about homemaking. Each of my girls readily admits they don't know as much as they would like and spend a good amount of time trying to learn how to simply organize their living spaces!

For those critical of an effort to assist in helping women to develop their homemaking skills--wake up and smell the roses. The downside of our inattention to this critical area of life is obesity (too much restaurant and fast food), chaos (disnorganized households because multi-tasking has been replaced with focused time online--someone still needs to do the laundry) and relationship problems (grandmas can be too busy to help, they are working hard too!). Our young people need this skill set in a way that the older generation cannot imagine. Last time I looked, most high schools still offer home economics and it actually got more popular in this century than the last--for obvious reasons. There was no one at home to teach the teenagers.

Whether we call it home economics and structure courses like early childhood development or time management--it sounds like Southwestern College has targeted a much needed course of instruction for those who wish to focus on this area of life at a time when their young family might be undergoing some of the greatest and most challenging years of their lives.

Imagine more moms who are less overwhelmed, more spouses who are secure in their abilities to run a household. And finally, imagine being ridiculed now by the likes of CNN because our own Baptist brothers and sisters choose to make an issue out of this.

Years ago (and not too many for that matter), counseling was not considered theological enough for our seminaries to consider seriously as a biblical course of study. Surely, by now we can support an undergraduate program of study meant to fill a great need that evidently is not being met in our career-crazed, divorce-ridden society. Remember, not every young women, although she may desire it--who is married to a budding preacher--has the backdrop of a calm and functional Christian home with a godly mother as an example. And godly doesn't mean not working or working. Look again at Proverbs. God bless the young women and God help them to feel secure in all of the demands we place on them.

Remaining anon to not confuse issues :) Sometimes it's just hard not have an opinion.

Anonymous said...

I just wanted to comment that I just read to the bottom after posting and realize I sort of sound like the other ANON writer. Too funny. I guess it means there are other women out there who understand this issue is much deeper than who is going to wash the dishes tonight and could actually be very, very helpful for young women who are seeking this instruction.

BTW-I did teach my daughter in law to sew (she has an undergraduate degree in psychology) -- and my daughter can actually cook almost anything as long as she calls me at the office for assurance and blow-by-blow instructions (she has an MBA).

But, honestly, all egos aside, there's more to running a household than figuring out who runs the vaccum or babysits while mom is at work. Don't rob women who regardless of where they are during the day or where the kids are--still desire to have a household described in the New Testament.

Proverbs!

ABOUT A18 said...

David,
Well, I'll leave that for you to wrestle with. But no where does the Scripture say that the man should but it does say the woman should. So, unless you are going to add your own asterisks to that verse, I suggest just taking Him at His word and trusting His word is best.

Chris

Anonymous said...

Chris, now you are making too much sense. Soon, we will have the esteemed Bryan Riley telling us that we must just look to Jesus. I agree with Bryan but my question is how can we look to to Jesus with out a perfect revelation from God and the illumination of the Holy Spirit. Then you will have Ms/Miss Brown telling you that we are stepping back in the dark ages. Is she a Baptist? I am not sure because she seems to think that SBC can actually dictate to the local church what they should about sexual perverts. I am all for her cause, but wondering how do we take over local churches. By this time, my favorite pastor in Oklahoma--The man, the myth, the legend Wade Be my hero Burleson will enlighten us with his sharp mind.

Signed Anonymous for the sake of Greg.....

For goodness sake don't take things to seriously....:)

ABOUT A18 said...

Anonymous.

Uh, I didn't follow at all.

Chris

Anonymous said...

Chris, that's because you didn't have your handy dandy BF and M in hand. How dare you read and think without it?

50 Hail Patterson's ought to do it for you.

:)

ABOUT A18 said...

Nope. Still don't follow. My wife is over my shoulder and as confused as I am. I'd love to be enlightened but I seriously don't see any connection between what you are saying and what I commented on.

And oh, for the sake of Greg, reveal yourself...

Chris

Anonymous said...

CB,

It looks as if I received just the response I expected. It was not an actual answer, of course. As always, you resort to degredation rather than showing signs of actual thought process. I wonder if God thinks he is CB Scott or if it is a one-way deal.

Colin McGahey said...

Wade,

In response to your *opinion* of the Homemaking concentration of the Bachelor of Arts in Humanities at the *College at Southwestern* (and not a Homemaking degree at a seminary), two bright anonymous commentors have offered sound reasoning from women who desire to enroll in the program and historical referents for it's need.

Do you have a response as to why your opinion should be heeded and their's (with reasoning) should not?

Thanks,

Tim Sweatman said...

I personally do not believe that a seminary college is the best place to teach homemaking skills. If there is such a great need for this type of education (and a case can be made that the need exists), why don't we offer materials to help our churches provide this training to their members (and make it available to males as well as females)? Are a few ministers' wives the only ones who need such skills? Or do those who lack the financial ability to attend college not need to learn these things?

Even if I were convinced that a seminary college is the proper place for such training, I do not believe the program offered by SWBTS emphasizes the right things. Isn't childrearing and household management more important to the well-being of a family than principles of design and clothing production? To be fair, I do believe that the emphasis on nutrition and meal preparation is warranted (provided that the latter does not focus on which fork to use or how to present food in some cute or artsy manner).

Colin McGahey said...

Tim,

You're right, the home/family is probably the best place. The church is probably the second best place. Where in your opinion is the third best?

If there is not a need (or great(?) need), then there would be no need for materials from SWBTS to be sent to your church. If there is a need, then rally the old women to train the younger, and ask them if they need instruction on how to teach what they already know-- I have a feeling you will get a few salty replies.

As to "few minister's wives," what percentage of the enrolling students are minister's wives or aspiring to be so? I thought the above interview comment was clear that the desires varied. Further, could not the future minister's wives then take it to the church to train women who desire? I think that is plausible, even likely. I would also hasten to add that we should be careful about numbers, especially in light of our call to personal discipleship. For, in our vast world, what good is my investment into a few going to do?

Ask Dan Taylor, the teacher of John Sutcliff, before he went on to John Fawcett's Wainsgate, and then to Bristol for pastoral training. Then upon arriving at his pastorate at Olney began receiving ministerial students for training, only to be associated with Ryland, Fuller, Carey and others who began the work of the Missionary Society. (cwcid- English Baptists of the 18th Century, Brown)

Anonymous said...

Wade,
I am a SWBTS grad and a woman. I value family and embrace the role of the woman. But, I agree with your points about this degree. Honestly, I am embarrassed about this homemaking degree for similar reasons found in your post and because I feel that it has inadvertently promoted the idea that women are only designed for certain roles in the body of Christ. I know that is not the intention and I understand the need, however, due to the mishandling and negative climate at SWBTS, this degree has a shadow over it.

Although I am a conservative, I dislike being brushed with the same stroke as the faces getting the most press (Ledbetter, Patterson, etc.) I am greatly disturbed that by being a conservative I will be brushed with the same brush as these leaders and will inadvertently be seen as "anti-alcohol", "anti-women", "anti-tongues", "anti-camel training", etc. I would so much rather be known as a Christian that stands and lives in grace rather than a list of "anti's." It is odd to me that we teach grace, but practice works and judge one's degree of conservatism based upon one's stance on some of these issues. Not that I dismiss obedience. I just absolutely want the main thing to be God's grace. Not whether or not I embraced the movement to purge the SBC of anyone that is "not like us."
Issues like this home-making degree, alcohol, tongues, etc. have manifested a discouraging symptom within our SBC family as I see godly men and women judging one another and forgetting about God's grace and going into all the world to reach the nations for Christ.

Blessings to you, my friend.

charis

CB Scott said...

Anony,

Thank you. I am glad you find me dependable.

cb

Anonymous said...

Charis, the bottom line is that women have certain roles, and men have certain roles. I can't give birth because I am a man. Neither can a woman be a pastor, its goes against God's role for women. Yet, I am not anti-woman. Neither are those who believe women have certain roles. Just because we don't accept your role of women doesn't mean we are against women.

Anonymous for Greg

greg.w.h said...

To "Anonymous for Greg":

You, sir, are a troll, a most vile creature found especially in the environs of the Internet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

It's why the Internet is often found to be uncivil: people provoke just to get a reaction instead of offering meaningful comment. Wade would be well-advised to simply delete your post.

Greg

Anonymous said...

A troll really? How so? I have simply responded to Charis statement about people who hate women.

You have yet to answer my question
Do you call out everyone who posts Anonymous or just those you disagree with?

If I am offended anyone, I am sorry. I have advise previously to not take things to seriously.

Anonymous for Greg

Anonymous said...

I am a troll because I write to get a reaction.

Let's think about this:

1) People have been making fun of the homemaking degree. Are they being trollish?

2) People question Dr. Patterson's motives. Are they being trollish?

greg.w.h said...

To "Anonymous for Greg":

Read Charis's post again. Then read yours again. I'll offer, gently, that you misread what she said in its entirety.

Greg

ABOUT A18 said...

Annonymous for Greg,

Trust me, EVERYONE who leaves comments annonymously gets slammed. Sure an occasional one slips through but it simply is a blog taboo and really invalidates your comments in the minds of many. Most consider it cowardly...

Anonymous said...

Greg, I don't think I did.

Debbie Kaufman said...

I am a troll because I write to get a reaction.

Let's think about this:

1) People have been making fun of the homemaking degree. Are they being trollish?

2) People question Dr. Patterson's motives. Are they being trollish?


We've signed our names to take responsibility for our statements. Are we being trollish?

Anonymous said...

It doesn't matter if one has signed a name or not. How do we know if it is your real name? Anonymous is just as good as any other name someone can make up.

Wayne Smith said...

Anonymous said...
It doesn't matter if one has signed a name or not. How do we know if it is your real name? Anonymous is just as good as any other name someone can make up.

God see's and knows everything you are doing, so who do you think you are fooling? Is this post about gutless people.

TRUTH or CONSEQUENCES
In His Name

CB Scott said...

Well Done, Wayne.

cb

Anonymous said...

tell me something I don't know. My point is my point. Debbie makes a big deal about a name. I can put any name on it I want. Thanks Wayne for your kind reminder, but the point is the point.

Anonymous is my name or My name is nobody (what a movie)

ABOUT A18 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ABOUT A18 said...

Chicken...I mean, Anonymous,

Generally, people who post their name on this blog either have more info on their profile or personal blog that reveals that they are a real person, or they are people we actually meet at conventions, church events, etc. Sure, an occasional person is completely obscure to us. The fact that you won't put your name means someone on hear WOULD know you.

Chicken...

Since you won't put it, it reeks of ulterior motives or of someone who is "in they system" or whatever. It leaves people second guessing and thus, giving no credit to your comments. Sorry, that's just the way it is.

Doesn't the fact that this is our main conversation with you (and not your actual thoughts on the issues in this blog) bother you? Your comments have been placed to the side and ignored because you are too stubborn, chicken, etc. to man up (or woman up) and state your name. The Christian faith allows no secrecy...

Chris

Anonymous said...

And there are secret house meetings in China. Yet, we have missionaries working uncover in some countries.

Anonymous is my name.

Debbie Kaufman said...

anonymous: Unless your life is in danger, I suggest you sign your name.

ABOUT A18 said...

HEY, good point...sign your name

BTW, has it ever occurred to you that you could have signed a fake name by now and most likely everyone would have dropped the issue. At this point, even IF you signed your name I think credibility has been lost...

Elisarose said...

Sign your name.

Anonymous said...

I am the person who signed my name "anonymous" because I don't think that who I am or what my gender or church membership should matter to the question that I asked. (see posting many, many posts aboue).

Can you people get back to the thread that began this discussion, specifically the minor in homemaking at the College at Southwestern?

I will ask again since nobody wants to answer for whatever reason:

Have any of you talked to ANYBODY in this program at all and, if not, do you have any intention of doing so? Or will you continue to spout off about the problems you feel that the program has without ever knowing what is really going on and what motivates these women to pursue this course of study?

By the way, being slammed is not as bad as being ignored.

Maybe it's because I have a valid point...

ABOUT A18 said...

Ignored you shall be. Bye.

a18mission has signed off for the night.

Chris

Colin McGahey said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Colin McGahey said...

Anonymous,

Your comments are indeed substantial, and the only ones to offer good research and support. Expect to be pounded when your anonymous because it often invokes self-righteous words from people who appear to have attained a level of courage and righteousness by signing their own name. It is perhaps the same feeling one gets when they gossip- a feeling of superiority over another. As long as you are not sinning in your words by gossip or slander, you should not worry about what these guys think (or choose not to respond to).

Anonymous said...

C B Scott said:

"I think she should be able to learn to teach Hebrew in seminary and get a job teaching in one if she is good at such a vocation. I also think a woman should be able to learn to bake a cake at seminary if she wants, and if she wants to stay at home and bake them she should be free to do so. If she wants to open a bakery and sell the cakes she learned to bake in seminary she should be free to do so."

CB, Do you really think this is the best use of CP funds? Would you tell a missionary who is working hard to raise support that it's better to have them making the rounds raising funds than for a future pastor's wife to get a masters of DIVINITY degree in cake baking?

I think they should have the right to do both just as you and they can and should do both for the Glory of the lord, as you said. However, I'm just not keen on CP funds paying for it.

Thanks,
Ron

Debbie Kaufman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Debbie Kaufman said...

Colin: I would disagree with your entire statement. The reason to not post anonymously is for not only credibility but integrity. In the end the only thing a Christian has is integrity. It's too easy to post rhetoric under the anonymous title as has already been shown. I will not answer the question, and I do have an answer, until anonymous shows both guts and integrity to sign his or her name, even a first name is better than nothing. This is the last I will say on this subject.

Debbie Kaufman said...

Ron: I agree with what you have said in your comment. That too is a concern of mine. The second concern is that this is a seminary. A seminary where tuition is not cheap. And while I expect the price to be high for a good education at a Southern Baptist seminary, do you know how many cake ingredients and how to books or cd's I could buy for the price that Southwestern would charge for these classes? And as Wade has brought up, it is interesting that this comes on the heels of the Sheri Klouda incident.

Belief Matters said...

Debbie, When I was in seminary it wasn't that expensive. It was very cheap thanks to CP money.

$500 semester
$125 month for a room

Books were probably the biggest expense.

Jeff

Anonymous said...

A few comments since I hadn't seen the ensuing discussing after I first posted anonymously on August 30.

The discussion on anonymous posting is irrelevant and the personal remarks about trolls are extraneous. They both give blogs a bad name. If Wade himself allows anonymous bloggers and he's hosting the blog, perhaps he, in his wisdom, understands the value of allowing some to be anonymous.

Colin Mghaey has some good points. The first is that those who CHOOSE to engage in a program of study life the one offered will be then equipped to take what they have learned back to the church in order to organize and structure programs which benefit other women--and ultimately the church as a whole. Honestly, if you look back at early childhood education, many of the same arguments are being made here against the program, whether it should be taught at the college level, and who should be involved.

At dinner last night with some very lively folks, we took on my twenties daughter who, at first, like me, had a knee jerk reaction against the program. After spending about an hour talking about what the purpose of college is and whether or not a seminary-based college is the appropriate place in which to offer a biblically-based look at homemaking--she agreed there really couldn't be a better place.

Does this devalue other college degrees? I don't think so. I'm sure the curriculum has gone through the same development and review as most other courses of study. I'm sure this is not about how to vacuum and which mop to use, any more than early child development teaches students that young children need plenty of sleep and those under two shouldn't be in front of a television because in inhibits their grasp of vocabulary.
There's much more to making a home--and whether or not the women is married to a preacher, a lawyer or a school teacher--if she CHOOSES to focus on this course of study at this point in her life--we should applaud that and not further denigrate the role and responsibility of the women as it pertains to her household.

Some of the most amazing Christian women are also well-known outside of their roles as homemaker. In keeping with the issues, without naming names, I can think of a least a dozen accomplished women who are well-known in their career or ministry fields--all of whom are good homemakers as well. Making a good home also means knowing how all of that can be accomplished. I imagine that some of the young women involved actually have children. If they are taking classes and balancing that and taking care of the children and the home as well--they are already learning the fullness of what it means to be a godly homemaker. If that same woman scrubs toilets at the seminary for minimum wage, in order to help purchase his school books while he tends to the children, already she is learning to be a godly homemaker.

Finally, Southwestern College, I'm sure, is fully accredited by a regional group, beyond ATS which accredits the seminary. I am positive the faculty at the college would not put their accreditation in jeopardy by offering a degree which does not stand up academically. Further, the criticism sees to have initially originated from a source well-know to be critical of anything related to gender issues at the school. To evaluate the viability on that basis is with a presumption that it is not a worthy degree and involves fallacious argumentation.

Women don't need to feel compelled to hang the clothes on clotheslines any more than men should personally change the oil in their car. Bottom line is how, biblically, can homemaking be accomplished in this century--and how can women who complete a degree at Southwester College feel empowered to lead in this area?

Jess said...

What a horrible commentary it is on the older women in our churches that a program like this would even be necessary.

The young women (mothers, wives, and singles alike) of my generation are CRYING out for mentorship in this area- I see young Christian mothers who have to go to the bookshelves at Barnes and Noble to try to learn about parenting, or cooking, or housekeeping, simply because they haven't been taught these things.

Perhaps women of previous generations were taught these things. But what our generation was taught was that career is paramount to family, that life "dreams" are more important than family life, and that babies were burdens rather than blessings. My friends and I have had to learn to UNDO the lessons that we've been taught, and are now trying to piece together how to keep house, how to cook nutritional meals, and how to be "keepers at home" (a la Titus 2) because virtually NONE of us were taught this by our mothers, and we see virtually NO rolemodels within the church who have successfully done these things.

Women's "rights" and feminism has so permeated our church culture that it is difficult to find a worthy mentor or rolemodel if you are a young mom desiring to be a keeper at home.

I understand all the hoopla and derision associated with classes such as these- but it is a STAIN on the garment of the church that so many young moms and wives have been left to figure these things out on their own.

Sadly, now it is left to Mrs. Patterson and a band of women at SWBTS to try to do what moms and older women should have been doing all along.

Jess @ Making Home

ABOUT A18 said...

Hey Anonymous,
Actually (though I can't speak for Wade), he is typically one of the first to call anonymous commenters to task. If you've been on this blog very long at all you know he is not very fond of it.

Anonymous said...

Wade,

Sorry to get off the ISSUE at hand, but if like the unnamed pastor (aboutA18) from North Carolina has said, you have a problem with anonymous postings, please let me know and post I will no more.

I have only posted on your site a few times. In no instance did you call me "to task." Before posting, I remember having read either in a story somewhere or on your blog somewhere that you allowed anonymous postings because you respect the fact that sometimes people have something to say that is legitimate but they refer to remain anonymous. If that's not the case, or if this is the case, please clarify.

Again, sorry to get off issue. That was not my intent in posting in the first place.

I will respect your wishes.

Anon, but as my previous posts have said, a women in her forties with a long line of identifying characteristics spread throughout her postings, actually making her more easily identified than the person who objects to the anon posting!

Belief Matters said...

I wonder if Wade is happy when you call people chicken and act in an ungodly matter toward people. If Wade doesn't want the anonymous posting, than take away that option. Until then, why not quit being Wade's police.

Jeff

CB Scott said...

Ron,

I do not actually understand your question. First of all, our missionaries do not raise their funds. Please give me a clear understanding of your question. I'll try to answer.

Jess,

I hear you, but I would like to say it is not just a "horrible commentary" on older women. It is a horrible commentary on all of us. I think it is a greater commentary of horribleness on men. We have failed to lead. I do not mean what some may think when I say "lead." I don't mean we should lead you to be "barefooted, pregnant, cooking and cleaning with you lips zipped."

I mean we have failed to be biblical leaders loving you as Christ loved the church. That is what I mean.

I mean men have failed far more than women relating to how our children are doing in life.

cb

ABOUT A18 said...

a18mission is Chris Hilliard. I've been around and haven't tried to hide.

ABOUT A18 said...

Wade Burleson said...
Joe, no fair signing in as anonymous either? I have IP tracking. :) Dishonesty really bothers Bart.
:)
03 June, 2007 23:48

Wade Burleson said...
I don't particularly appreciate anonymous posts, especially like those above. Though others (not me) have no way of knowing who you are - I trust in the privacy of your home and church your lack of courage will be convicting.
27 July, 2007 09:44

Wade Burleson said...
Rex,

Thanks for the effort regarding Mr. Baylor Anonymous.

Two things for your reflection:

(1). Anyone who writes anonymously has something to hide, lose, or is fearful of the accountability a known identity brings. It's best to ignore anonymous writers.

(2). It is difficult to keep slander from being printed when one keeps an open blog. I can assure you that I do my best to keep it off my posts, but comments are another story. Anonymous commentators are usually the worst. What does puzzle me is that I do not moderate (approve) my comments --- they go up immediately. Others, including Brad, approve of the comments via moderation.

Again, thanks for your help, but I have come to expect anonymous flamers and though in the past I sought to stop them when they posted slander about me, now I just smile and go on.
29 December, 2006 13:08

Anonymous said...

Well it appears I was misinformed and perhaps Wade cares more deeply about identity than I realize, if the emails quoted are accurate. With this in mind, I will no longer, on occasion, read or comment on this blog. I'm not afraid of accountability, but unlike in newspapers, magazines, television shows or Sunday school, I thought a blog could be a place where a freer exchange of ideas, impressions and reactions could take place without the necessary limits the aforementioned require.

In other words, I thought this was more like a public discussion or forum where you could talk about issues without necessarily knowing the person. Certainly, there have been times when I've been in the serving line at church or sat next to someone on an airplane or been in line at Starbucks and had a conversation with someone whose name I might not know or may never know. Those are some of the greatest conversations I've had concerning politics, religion, education, child psychology, etc. In each of those instances, I was just me--not burdened with a title or job responsibilities which might have someone fit me into a pre-made box before I can open my mouth.

Forgive me for not understanding the purpose of this blog and for trying to articulate a viewpoint.

Signing off- Anon40

Belief Matters said...

How sad that A18 or whatever can call people names, and good honest people who for whatever reason do not want to reveal their identity. I know A18 or whatever his name is is happy. Wade if you don't want people posting anonymous take the option away. Please tell your police to be more civil in calling people names.

Jeff

ABOUT A18 said...

I apologize for the "name calling". My use of the word "chicken" was in jest but has clearly not been taken as the juvenile comment it is. I was merely "picking on" the anonymous (and there is more than one, so this wasn't personal) commenters. I typed "chicken" with a grin and a chuckle and assumed it would be read in the same tone. Clearly my culture and yours are different and they clashed here. Sorry.

Anonymous said...

This is anon40.

I admit I wanted to see what happened once I withdrew and realized Wade had still not weighed in.

But suffice it to say, I did not lose any sleep over being called a chicken. I know why I'm anonymous and your musings did not offend me. Rather, if the facilitator of this blog, Wade, has said he does not prefer anonymous blogging and considers it non-credible, than it would be rude for me to continue.

I took your "chicken" jest as good natured ribbing, but considered your quotes from Wade a bit more serious. After all, your opinion about blogging has absolutely NOTHING to do with the ISSUE at hand.

So with that in mind, it's Saturday and since I'm a serious homemaker, I need to get off this laptop and break out the cleaning supplies. On second thought, I really need to find that number for a housecleaner again. It's all about CHOICE at this stage of life!

Unless Wade weighs in on this point and states clearly his wishes concerning anonymous blogs, I won't post again.

Finally signing off: Anon40.

Debbie Kaufman said...

I hope I'm not tying up the comments, but it's hard for me to keep quiet. None of the disagreement has anything to do with "feminism" invading Southern Baptist women. That is what you may have been told, but I disagree. I am not a feminist. I am a woman who has been discriminated against, Put in her place, so to speak. I believe it does have everything to do with the Bible permeating Southern Baptists.

My father taught my sister and I how to do basic maintenance on cars and other jobs. I took shop in High School and am pretty good with tools and building. When I was in school(Private Christian), college for women was not promoted. Education was not pushed past High School. I regret that. It's part of the reason why this subject is so passionate with me. It seems we are going backwards not forward. Jeff, I'm not sure this is the best way to use CP dollars. If my memory serves me correctly, only fifteen students have signed up for this course.

Lin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lin said...

I just do not understand this legalism associated with Titus 2. It is quoted often as some sort of command to women.

But if we take it as a command to only work as keepers of the home then we are in trouble when we get to verse 9. Because we have to also agree that slaves should REMAIN slaves.

Lin said...

"Women's "rights" and feminism has so permeated our church culture that it is difficult to find a worthy mentor or rolemodel if you are a young mom desiring to be a keeper at home."

I find that statement incredible. There are more resources for 'keeping' a home than ever before. The internet is full of free resources as is cable tv. Has there ever been a time when there was more interest in raising children, cooking, cleaning, organizing, budgeting, etc? Entire magazines are dedicated to these topics!

No, what we need are women who want to deeply study the Word and walk closer with their Savior. That will take care of all of it.

Anonymous said...

lin,
The internet and magazines, for that matter, can be obtained for a variety of topics. You can probably pretty much learn everything if you have the time, you know where to look and you know what to look for (should I listen to Dr. Spock or Dr. Laura????). Do away with colleges and seminaries altogether! Get rid of any courses related to methods of teaching: expository preaching, leading music, accounting and computers and teaching young children, etc., and just study the Bible!!!!! What a simplified approach. Talk about back to being barefoot and pregnant. By the time a persons sits around and reads all those magazines, and spends time printing out stuff from the internet and trying to discern which voices to heed, they could have combined study of the word with practical application of the word and voila, focused on some practical matters that actually might make a difference in our world. Does it bother anyone that we have handbell choirs and voice lessons as seminary classes. After all, can't we just plug in a DVD player and dispense with all that stuff!

CB Scott said...

Debbie,

Your testimony of what you were taught in school is what I am trying to say to Jess. Men are the heart of the problem. What you were taught in school is not biblical.

I am not promoting this degree to put women in their "place" in the home. I am promoting it because it is needed for survival in ministry. Frankly, a class would be helpful to help "preacher-BOYS" to become preacher-MEN. The present need is just that great.

cb

CB Scott said...

Debbie,

The part where you were taught not to go beyond high shcool is what I am saying is not biblical.

Don't throw an ajustable wrench at me. That part of your education was not my reference. :-)

cb

Debbie Kaufman said...

CB: I should have clarified that I wasn't addressing your comments but a mixture of many comments. That is my fault for not be clear.

Debbie Kaufman said...

anonymous: I find your statement incredible and uncredible. No one has said that, in fact that is what we have been saying to teach. Teach women to dig into the word, the languages etc. The message being sent by this home-ec program on the heels of the Sheri Klouda incident is just to obvious. OR at least the message that appears to be sent.

CB: I appreciate much of what you have said here.

Colin McGahey said...

No, what we need are women who want to deeply study the Word and walk closer with their Savior.


Has anyone read the program requirements? Has anyone read the comment above? Do the women enrolled not desire to do just this?

Lin said...

"The internet and magazines, for that matter, can be obtained for a variety of topics. You can probably pretty much learn everything if you have the time, you know where to look and you know what to look for (should I listen to Dr. Spock or Dr. Laura????)."

The Holy Spirit can guide you on what is appropriate. And if you don't have time to google what you are looking for, how do you have time to take classes at a seminary?

"Do away with colleges and seminaries altogether!"

What? How silly. I have a cousin who majored in Greek at Wheaton. She is a minister's wife. She will be using her education to teach on the mission field. (Not SBC) She is not a bit worried about homemaking even though her mom was a full time corporate attorney and she learned very little about homemaking. She is more concerned about raising her children to the Glory of God and supporting her husband in missions.


" Get rid of any courses related to methods of teaching: expository preaching, leading music, accounting and computers and teaching young children, etc., and just study the Bible!!!!! What a simplified approach."

So if you cannot have homemaking courses at the seminary then get rid of everything else taught there, too? Yes, that is certainly logical.

" Talk about back to being barefoot and pregnant."

What?

" By the time a persons sits around and reads all those magazines, and spends time printing out stuff from the internet and trying to discern which voices to heed, they could have combined study of the word with practical application of the word and voila, focused on some practical matters that actually might make a difference in our world."

Pratical application of the Word in baking a good cake? How does this relate to Home Economics courses at a seminary? You have lost me.

" Does it bother anyone that we have handbell choirs and voice lessons as seminary classes. After all, can't we just plug in a DVD player and dispense with all that stuff!"

Speaking as someone who has 3 cousins who graduated from seminary with degree's in music, you certainly have simplified that area of study and ministry. But again, what does this have to do with cooking, sewing, cleaning and raising kids? Do you really need to pay the tuition and spend the hours to be taught how to do these things?

There are wonderful resources for free. The Holy Spirit can guide you as you study the Word and seek to Glorify Him in all things.

Anonymous said...

lin,
Do you understand satire? Probably not. After all, that's not specifically mentioned in the Bible is it?

The point is that homemaking, depending on what is expected, is not as easy as you make it sound. Good homemaking can be enhanced not only by study of the Word, but by some courses which go beyond teaching one how to boil water. Evidently, you believe methods in preaching and teaching and music are deserving of study and time, but advanced "home economics" as you wish to call it, is not? I'm sure hoping to find out how effective Greek can be on a mission field which asks nothing more of a women than to be able to teach other women to cook and sew.

And therein lies the rub. I would, even in casual writing say "nothing more" than to cook and sew. But that's the point, it's not that easy to cook and sew if you've never done it. And even if you have, there's an enormous body of information about nutrition and culture that can be taught about cooking. And sewing? I can readily observe that's a hopeless endeavour for most young women. Simply, they don't even know how to thread a needle.

One who is barely competent themselves and who relies on the internet and glossy magazines and cable TV to muddle through the basics of homeaking can hardly be expected to model these skills and teach these SKILLS to others, especially in an environment where they may not have high speed internet, a microwave and ready to wear clothes. It's no laughing matter, it's a reality. The same kind of reality that sees a need for voice lessons and handbell choirs as reasonable and necesary as part of a music ministers curriculum which involves more than music theory, history of the hymnal, and a heavy dose of Bible courses.

Deciding that homemaking should be learned by consistent parents and osmosis and not worthy of college study really and incredibly underestimates what it takes to be a Proverbs woman in today's world.

We are an equal opportunity culture. Not all women have been provide an equal opportunity in their own home or through their own experience to learn advanced homemaking. If they see a need to concentrate in this area, whether for missions ministry or to enhance their own family ministry or to teach and develop others--whatever would make us hesitate to affirm this course of study? Shame on us, we are either blind or ignorant of the reality of today's culture.

Sorry you apparently didn't get the satire. I tried to be a little more clear this time.

Lin said...

"Do you understand satire? Probably not. After all, that's not specifically mentioned in the Bible is it? "


I'm blonde.


"Deciding that homemaking should be learned by consistent parents and osmosis and not worthy of college study really and incredibly underestimates what it takes to be a Proverbs woman in today's world."

The Proverbs 31 woman had servants. She was busy buying real estate.

Anonymous said...

You're correct. The Proverbs woman had servants. Doesn't mean she didn't know how to run her household or do her own work; but she chose to sell real estate. She wore beautiful robes. It is conceivable to me that a women might hire help because she takes pride in how her house looks, but chooses to spend time doing something besides cleaning. In this case, she's still running the house. Goes to the argument that homemaking is more than doing chores.

Debbie Kaufman said...

It seems to me the education being offered to women is substandard as compared to the education offered by SWBTS to men.

Belief Matters said...

Debbie, This isn't true at all. Anyone can take theology classes at SWBTS. When I was at SWBTS, there were women in the theology school. The same is offer to all.

Lin said...

It is conceivable to me that a women might hire help because she takes pride in how her house looks, but chooses to spend time doing something besides cleaning. In this case, she's still running the house. Goes to the argument that homemaking is more than doing chores.

01 September, 2007 22:16

Hey! Why not a management degree for the aspiring Proverbs 31 woman with all those servants? She can always google for a great Lasagna recipe when she wants to cook herself. :o)

Sorry Friend, I cannot get past the treatment of Dr. Klouda by this institution. Whether anyone cares to see it, the two are related in a huge way. Message sent and let us not forget tithe dollars are involved.

By the way, are they going to install kitchens at SWBTS for this area of study? Sewing machines?

Anonymous said...

Lin,
And that's why this issue is funny to you? Because you can't separate the issues? So you would further denigrade women, as you have accused SWBTS of doing, by continuing to make light of homemaking? A typical, typical response. That's why readers shouldn't give in to knee jerk reaction, but look at the realities and should for themselves think through the broad implications of the issue. The Klouda case, I fear, has clouded the vision of otherwise clear thinking individuals.

Lin said...

"So you would further denigrade women, as you have accused SWBTS of doing, by continuing to make light of homemaking?"

Please stop using 'emotional' arguments. No one is 'denigrating' women except for Patterson who denigrated ONE woman and has made it 'harder' for her to 'keep her home'.

That, my friend, is a fact. So you tell me who really cares about women at SWBTS? That is about as 'clear headed' as I can make it....using facts, of course.

William said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
William said...

Friendly Baptist English professor checking in here. The word is "denigrate." In the 2nd grade, I was always picked next-to-last for the kickball team, but first for the spelling bee. I guess we all are given a special talent.

Anonymous said...

I'll add the word to my dictionary. I thought blogs were notorious for allowing inventive (not to be confused with invective) spelling :)

Again, typical. When you don't agree with one person's assessment, you call their argument "emotional." Phew! If you disagree with my assessment that making light of homemaking is, in fact, denigrating to women, just say so and tell me why it isn't true.

As far as emotional arguments, isn't that what you are doing when you use the sad Klouda case, and her loss, to further your crusade against SWBTS leadership?

Belief Matters said...

I think offering a homemaking degree is a great ideal, but I don't think it should be offered at Seminary. In fact I don't Seminaries should offered the traditional undergraduate programs. I think they should stick with the Master's, PhD's, Dmin's, and the theological/educational programs for older men who need solid theological training.

However, I do think that most of the complains leveled at SWBTS is due to Dr. Patterson. The argue might be right, but I think the spirit is wrong.

Lin said...

"As far as emotional arguments, isn't that what you are doing when you use the sad Klouda case, and her loss, to further your crusade against SWBTS leadership? "

I connected the obvious dots which are facts. Dr Klouda is ousted by SWBTS because she just happens to be a WOMAN. That, is a substantiated fact. Then,a short while later, a homemaking course is offered. Those are facts. They relay a message.

SWBTS touts itself as a 'Christian' Seminary. Yet, it denigrated Dr. Klouda because she is a woman and in turn her ability to 'keep her home' was hampered because of the financial hardship that denigration brought forth... including serious health insurance problems.

I am forever grateful to this blog owner and those who contributed funds to help Dr. Klouda. That was a shining example of caring for each other as members of the Body.

Quite frankly, SWBTS gave us a glaring example of how they really 'help' women.

Let's bury the horse. We have beat it to death. :o)

Belief Matters said...

A person is not against women just because they don't believe that women should teach men. You can blv in the facts if you want to, but bottom line some people choose to blv that the Bible doesn't permit a woman to be over a man, or to be a pastor.

Jeff

Jess said...

It would totally crack me up, if it weren't so sad, that feminists, who claim to support all women being able to do the work they feel led to do, are the first ones in line to bash homemakers.

In these comments, homemaking has been derided, belittled, and undervalued-- almost entirely by women, interestingly enough. Many of the men in this conversation recognize the value of such a woman.

Again, I'll say it- as a young woman who WISHES she would have learned these things at home (but didn't), were I a young wife at SWBTS, I just might be calling for these classes too. And I'd be proud to sign up for them and learn how to bake, sew, care for children, and give more time to studying what the Bible has to say about women.

Frankly, I don't see the rub- as someone else mentioned, they offer choral music, languages (other than Greek/Hebrew), and many other extrabiblical classes at SWBTS. Why not offer one that supports the Titus 2 woman?

Debbie Kaufman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Debbie Kaufman said...

Jess you said : In these comments, homemaking has been derided, belittled, and undervalued-- almost entirely by women, interestingly enough. Many of the men in this conversation recognize the value of such a woman."

Could you point out where this occurred because I am a homemaker myself at the moment and I don't see it. This isn't homemakers vs. working mothers thread. There is more to this than I believe you know beginning with the firing of Sheri Klouda that has gone unanswered in these comments. Titus 2 was not written to seminaries from what I can find.

Anonymous said...

Lest there be confusion. I'm a woman and I've stood up for the need for these classes in support of Proverbs 31 and Titus 2. Although I do emphasize however that it's a women's CHOICE to take these classes and this course of study--I also support the fact that homemaking is oversimplified in some people's minds. I support women, married, single, young and old, to be able to take elective courses leading to a concentration in homemaking as part of a rigorous undergraduate course of study.

The choice is emphasized because whether or not we believe it's a biblical mandate for a women to be a homemaker (and I believe it is), it doesn't mean she isn't a homemaker if she decides to work outside of the home. Every course offered could still, in my mind, be beneficial. But, essentially, it is still a CHOICE to enroll in a course of study (even if one has children and that means leaving the house and getting someone to be a caretaker for the children, if there are any).

So on the record, this is one woman who supports the program. And I believe the other anonymous woman did as well.

As for the woman who felt cheated because her private Christian school didn't encourage her to go to college--that situation is very confusing. I know we enouraged our daughter to pursue college and grad school and all the while have maintained that at any point she should feel empowered, when and if she marries and has children, to reorient her life to be a full-time homemaker. I think this is what the SWBTS degree actually offers women. They can go ahead and pursue a degree that is humanities based, all the while learning some practical helps so that if they choose not to work outside the home, they are still an "educated mom" who has the foundation of a good strong biblically based education on which to build her future at home and in the church. If perchance at some point she also finds she needs to expand or apply that education to another pursuit, she is also free to do that. To me, it's the best of all worlds, especially if the women is interested in later opening a thrift shop, running a church-based tutoring program, or being involved in a variety of ministry or business ventures. There are not many people who actually use the undergraduate degree they obtain for any one career any more. Especially one in the humanities.

Anonymous said...

Lin,
You said "Dr. Klouda is ousted by SWBTS because she just happens to be a woman."

I would like to point out that she was/is not the only woman prof at SWBTS.

For example-
1. Angela Cofer- Assoc. Prof of Voice and Chair
2. Jill Sprenger- Assoc. Prof of Piano
3. Dorothy Patterson- Prof of Women's Studies
4. Esther Diaz-Bolet- Asst. Prof of Admin
5. Karen Kennemer- Inst. of Childhood Ministries (finishing PHD)
6. Margaret Lawson- Assoc. Dean for Master's Programs EM School
7. Marcia McQuitty- Assoc. Prof of Childhood Ministries
8. Terri Stovall- Dean of WOmen's Ministry
and last but not least
9. Dana Wicker- Asst. Prof of Psy and Counseling

If Dr. Klouda was not granted tenure simply because she is woman then why are these women still there? Many of them have been there much longer than Dr. Klouda.
Are they not women, too? And with the exception of Mrs. Dr. Patterson's classes (so as to distinguish them from Mr. Dr. Patterson's classes) everything that these women teach are open to both male and female students.

It appears that there has to be more to the story than just "she is a woman and that's why they let her go..."

(This information was gathered a faculty list at www.swbts.edu)

Debbie Kaufman said...

All these anonymous are making my head spin. :)

The anonymous that was confused by my statement. It was a whole different ball game in the 1970's which is when I graduated and especially in the churches and Christian schools. The game plan promoted for us being this after high school, college where you met a man, married, gave up your college or vocation to be a full time mother. So it was easier to skip the middle man(college) and aim for the rest. Jobs were also very limited as far as what a woman could do. At that time women were being paid less than men for the same job. I hope that clarifies the confusion a little.

Debbie Kaufman said...

Anonymous #2 with the information. I am sorry but your information is a little skewed. I would suggest that you read what Sheri Klouda herself has said as this has already been discussed. The hard thing about these kind of discussions is that one tends to have to repeat themselves over and over again when others jump in the middle of an ongoing discussion. But do a Google search. Ben Cole and this blog are very good sources.

CharlieMac said...

I wonder if a qualified male can teach Home Economics in SWBTS? I am a male. I cook, wash, iron, clean house, spin fiber into yarn, weave, knit and do several other crafts which are "normally" thought of as "women's activities.

I am able to teach others in the art of these crafts. I have taught Bible lessons to doctors, lawyers and men with masters degrees for more than 20 years. What do I need to qualify to teach Home Economics on a seminary level?

Should you indicate within my presence that I am either feminine or gay, you will not have to look up to see the sky or ceiling because you will be lying flat in a second. (Unless you are a woman, I might not hit a lady.)

Mac McFatter

jthomas899 said...

Charlie, We must first understand that the home economics degree is not at the Seminary level, it is an undergraduate degree offered at a seminary campus. I don't think of you as gay, but as a man who knows how to do some really good things. I wish I could do some of those things. So, don't hit folks just because they are stupid. You'll end up in jail for assault.

CharlieMac said...

Actually most of the posts on all the blogs miss the real point of Home Economics at SWBTS. Enrollment numbers have gone steadily and undergraduate programs help build the numbers.

Anonymous said...

Debbie,
I also graduated in the 70's. I also realize that each church, school and family situation is different. Raised by a single parent, I can do a lot of things which might be considered mens jobs. Growing up during the sexual revolution, however, I was very aware of the feminist movement, but chose instead to stay home and raise a family and finally went to school in my late twenties to earn an undergrad and a grad degree. In a variety of churches and cultures I was not necessarily encouraged, but was not blatantly discouraged either from both pursuing degrees and developing in my profession while still keeping my number one priority in making my home.

That's why I still don't see how the program suggested sets women back and I prefer to look at this move by SWBTS separately from the Klouda situation. The timing may be ironic, but the issues are still each be examined on their own.

One issue: Klouda being asked to leave because SWBTS has apparently decided to not allow women to teach certain theological courses. And, of course, people have different ideas on 1)the argument of who should teach who and what; and 2)whether Klouda was misled.

One other issue: SWBTS developing a curriculum for women who say they would like a concentration of electives in biblical homemaking in the undergraduate school.

Another separate issue: Whether or not SWBTS should offer an undergraduate course of study.

Still another issue: Whether an undergraduate course of study shold offer elective courses for women in homemaking.

Lots of issues. Each worth of its own discussion. I think Debbie also said this is not about women who work in the home versus women who also work outside the home. Unfortunately, I think that issue has been tossed in as well.

Lin said...

"It appears that there has to be more to the story than just "she is a woman and that's why they let her go..."

Unless you have some facts to back up this 'vague implication' against Dr. Klouda other than her being a woman teaching Hebrew to men, I suggest you retract that statement quickly or bring forth the facts. And what is worse, you make such vague implications as 'anonymous'.

Dr. Klouda was treated horribly and her entire life was affected. She was hired before Pattterson came then led to believe her job was safe after Patterson took over as President.

If this is the way a Christian 'woman' is treated at SWBTS by professing Christian men, then we have a huge problem in Christendom.

Lin said...

Enrollment numbers have gone steadily and undergraduate programs help build the numbers.

02 September, 2007 18:47

Don't be too impressed. As someone who worked on many projects for the Chancellor of a college system, I can tell you there are many creative ways to increase the FTE numbers.

Anonymous said...

To Lin,
You are the one who said that Dr. Klouda was not retained because she "just happened to be a woman."

All that I pointed out is that that can not be the case because if it was then all of these other women would not be teaching at SWBTS either.

If the issue is that she was teaching men and they feel that that should not be allowed to teach men then these other women should not be allowed to teach men either, but they are teaching men.

Their is no "vague implication' here. I was just following your statement with logical questions.

Now if you are saying that she was not retained because SWBTS does not want women to teach men in the Theology school then you need to say what you mean. None of the women that I listed do that.

If you reread what I posted there is in no way anything implied, vaguely or otherwise. I only stated facts then followed them up with a legitmate statement.

I really have no idea why she was not kept on, but your statement of 'just happened to be a women' can not be the whole story.

Belief Matters said...

Lin, Do you deal with facts?

Jeff

Lindon said...

"Now if you are saying that she was not retained because SWBTS does not want women to teach men in the Theology school then you need to say what you mean. None of the women that I listed do that."

I do not get it. Are you saying that the other women professors who are allowed to teach men never reference or quote scripture in their classes?

Anonymous said...

Lindon,

"Now if you are saying that she was not retained because SWBTS does not want women to teach men in the Theology school then you need to say what you mean. None of the women that I listed do that."

Notice, I said, "in the Theology school." This is a specific School within Southwestern. The other women teach in the School of Church Music, the School of Religious Education, etc.

I did not say anything about what they teach.

Debbie Kaufman said...

anonymous: There are just too many anonymous signers here. It's confusing. Name signing just means taking responsibility for your words. Hiding behind anonymity isn't hard, then you can say anything and no one knows who you are. Such seems to be the case here.

Sheri Klouda was a woman who taught Hebrew to men and was fired because she was a woman. End of story. Do a Google as I suggested and you will get the facts. Unless facts mean nothing to you.

Jeff: Do you deal in facts, because Lin is pretty spot on. This thread is degenerating fast and so thus will my participation. There are people commenting who have not followed the story and therefore what they don't know they make up.Read Wade's post and the point is clear.

Anonymous that addressed to me: I went to a Private Christian school, did you? I am an honest person, therefore the facts that I laid out did happen and SWBTS seems to be wanting to keep up that tradition.No feminism, no women's lib. Sticking with the Bible only? yes.

The only way this thread is about working women vs. stay at home is that you brought it there. Rabbit trails are forming fast. I repeat Read again Wade's post. His point is clear. Signing off by signing with my name as I stand by my comments.

Lin said...

Notice, I said, "in the Theology school." This is a specific School within Southwestern. The other women teach in the School of Church Music, the School of Religious Education, etc.

I did not say anything about what they teach.

02 September, 2007 21:38

Do these women who teach in these other schools ever reference or quote scripture to the male students?

Anonymous said...

Debbie,
I have done a Google on Dr. Klouda and actually have followed this story for quite some time.

You state that Dr. Klouda was not retained only because she was a woman who taught Hebrew to men.

Does that mean that all of these other women are still at SWBTS only because they don't deal with Hebrew?

Will the Music profs be let go if they teach Old Testament passages in Hebrew to be sung?

Will the Ed. School profs be let go if they deal with passages in Hebrew that discuss young children and their relationships with their parents or how Hebrew passages pertain to administration?

How about the Counseling prof. Is she restricted to not discussing the original languages when she looks at relationships among people in the Old Testament and how that relates to ministering through counseling today?

To say that someone was let go only because she was a woman teaching Hebrew to men in an institution that allows other women to continue to teach men is too simplistic in it's view.

You are right that this has deviated from the primary thread.

The deviation came with the assertion that the homemaking minor at the college somehow has anything to do with Dr. Klouda. If anyone (other than me) would talk to someone in the program they might gain some insight into why this is being offered at all.

By the way, an article about those students will be forthcoming at www.religionnews.com not in anyway a southern baptist website. Look for it under this listing concerning upcoming articles.

Anonymous said...

Lin,
I wouldn't know. I am not a student at SWBTS. I would hope that every class at SWBTS would be based on scripture, require scripture reading and scripture memorization.

Belief Matters said...

Debbie, You are I think we have beaten horse to death back to life and death again. I am no longer sure of my original point. ;)

I personally don't think that any seminary should offer undergraduate courses.

I can respect the differences people have on this topic.

I actually two people post at my old blog and take shots at me for not giving an adequate profile. They have appointed themselves internet blog police, I guess. :)

CB Scott said...

All,

Even if you have to be an Anony due to occupational hazard or simply because you are a little coward you should still get your facts right.

Debbie is right. The one and only reason Dr. Klouda was fired is because she is a woman.

It was a stupid thing to do. It was not biblical. It was also very reckless and reflects poor administrative skills on someone's part.

It is true that women teach in other disciplines at SWBTS. By the very nature of the reason for the existence of the institution everyone teaching should teach from a biblical and "Christian" theological position.

Any Sacred Music must have a biblical foundation or the teacher should be fired in a seminary.

Dr. Klouda was teaching languages not pastoral ministry.
There are men teaching in pastoral ministries in many of our seminaries that are in no way qualified to teach that discipline, but they do because they are men.

Debbie, you are right this thread is unraveling. It is due to more than Anonys. It is also due to a lack of knowledge which is the very thing that brought about the Klouda situation in the first place. Ironic, huh?

cb

Debbie Kaufman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Debbie Kaufman said...

Thank you CB.

Anonymous said...

And from New Mexico State College of Agriculture and Home Economics undergraduate catalog, the following:

Bachelor of Science in Family and Consumer Sciences--Majors in Clothing, Textiles, and Fashion Merchandising; Family and Consumer Science Education; Family and Child Science; and Human Nutrition and Food Science.

Wow, it’s not like The College at Southwestern has come up with a whole new idea. But unlike NM State, the SW program has at its foundation a biblical worldview, and, it’s actually a concentration in this area, with a humanities degree as the result. Not an actual degree in the elective area.

Do a Google and you’ll find many accredited school with similar offerings.

Pastor Noel said...

Everyone should read this page to better understand the importance of offering this kind of education...

http://www.masters.edu/DeptPageNew.asp?PageID=14

Noel

Lin said...

" the SW program has at its foundation a biblical worldview, "

A Biblical worldview does not treat fellow believers like SWBTS treated Dr. Klouda.

Belief Matters said...

Don't think we are perfect, people make mistakes. Some on this blog need to make sure the root of bitterness doesn't take hold. Others are using Wade to promote their own agenda.

Anonymous said...

Lin,
If we follow your line of thinking, then everything that happens at the seminary is suspect because of Klouda's situation? So that means none of the degrees granted, none of the minister's turned out, none of the climate that produced Klouda and others is within the context of a biblical worldview. Take the blinders off and quit using Klouda as the end to all of the effectiveness, worldview, climate, or whatever you might call it, at SWBTS.

Anonymous said...

lin
are you suggesting anyone who has ever been offended at church or at a christian school should not trust that the "worldview" there is a Biblical one? christian's make mistakes too, at all kinds of places and that sould not detract from there trying to train people to fill the great commission

didn't wade by posting this want discussion or did he jsut want peopole to tell him he is correct?

CB Scott said...

Lin,

SWBTS is founded on a biblical worldview.

It is foolish to say otherwise.

It is true the administration, especially the trustees, committed sin, but that does not mean the institution is going to hell in a handbag. It is one of the best seminaries in the world.

You are way off base here.

cb

Belief Matters said...

CB, You are correct concerning SWBTS. I am concerned that some people are so blinded by a hatred for the leadership, they can't see the good being done. SWBTS wasn't perfect when President Dilday was there, and will not be perfect in the future. They make mistakes. I have no problem with people pointing out mistakes, but it appears that some have an ax to grind.

Lin said...

Friends, Do you all really think God is impressed with any of us? We are so quick to brag about Kingdom work in a mighty institution of brick and mortar yet we do not care if a member of the Body has had her life ruined by professing Christians? Oh sure, it may not be a big deal to you but I can assure you it is to her.

You may say, Oh, but look at all the preachers and missionaries that have come out of SWBTS and you are worried about one person?

Does God keep a score sheet?

Dr. Klouda is evidence of a much bigger problem that should have all of us on our knees.

Would she have ever believed that professing Christians would do such a thing? They do it all the time. It is ironic that in such situations one is more secure with the pagans in the secular world.

Why do we not seem to care if tithe dollars are spent for a lifestyle of luxury and comfort for one of the so called ‘God’s anointed men’. We do not care if our so called ‘leaders’ are not really bond servants of Christ but power hungry, greedy and Lording it over others?

But we say, “Oh, but look at how much good has been done”! I submit to you that a man of poverty in India who walks from house to house preaching the Cross even though he is in danger of being martyred any minute has done far more in obedience to God than any of us including Patterson. (I know such a man personally and he has no seminary degree. Perhaps that means he cannot appropriately preach the Cross?)

Do we really know Him at all? Is He impressed with our boasting and ‘works’ when we cannot even manage to clean up what we call the House of the Lord? Is scripture not clear to us? As Christians we cannot love the world. We cannot continue in back room deals, deception, lying, greed and power and say we are His. If doing these things does not bring godly sorrow and repentance, we should be worried about our salvation.

Do you have any idea how Catholic we have become? With our Popes, Bishops and Vatican in Nashville? With our ‘anointed men’? (All believers are anointed…read John) Why are we so quick to explain things away so we can follow our earthly priests and institutions?

Then, to heap on more insult to our Savior, we call sin, ‘mistakes’.

All of our boasting, works, extra Biblical legalism, etc. is but filthy rags to Him. And yes, I am a fool. I pray I am a fool for Christ. He is going to burn all of this up one day, folks. SWBTS, Pecan Manor, all of it. The question is: What will remain that has Glorified Him?

We cannot have it both ways. We cannot overlook what we think are ‘small’ things because we think we have done such mighty things. That is not how God’s economy works.

Belief Matters said...

Lin, you are 110% correct God doesn't keep a score sheet, and that proves our argument, not yours. Thanks for proving our point.

CB Scott said...

Lin,

It is at this point I ask folks like you if you are a Southern Baptist. It seems as if you have been hurt by a single individual you once respected. Therefore you cuss the whole apple barrel.

So, Lin, are you a member of a Southern Baptist church?

CB Scott said...

Lin,

You said:

"It is ironic that in such situations one is more secure with the pagans in the secular world."

It seems you have had little experience with institutions of higher learning in the "secular world."

Is that the case?

cb

Lin said...

cb,

No, I have not been hurt by someone I once respected. Nice try on the strawman, though. :o)

Yes, I belong to an SBC Church

and No on the last question about 'institutions of higher learning'. I have had quite a bit of experience with them. They are more afraid of the EEOC than you can imagine. But that is the 'world'. I was speaking in my last comment about what would be expected from an institution that proclaims Christ.

Let us not make an idol of our institutions, it's leaders and the SBC to the point we overlook sin and injustice done to one of the Body by it's own.

Musing about seminaries, I wonder: Which one of the 12 Apostles was educated? When they were called, were not most found working jobs? Not exactly the cream of the Rabbinical crop which most Jews of the time would have expected.

Isn't it ironic that Paul, educated in the law, was sent to preach to the Gentiles?

Debbie Kaufman said...

If we follow your line of thinking, then everything that happens at the seminary is suspect because of Klouda's situation?

My answer to this is yes. Until this is made right not much else matters. It has nothing to do with hatred for the leadership. That is a strawman argument in my opinion. It has everything to do with hatred for this action among others that have been brought out and not discussed.

Debbie Kaufman said...

I don't know but Lin seems quite spot on in her comments. I see no bias, I do see a good use of putting the puzzle together quite accurately.

CB Scott said...

Lin,

A question is not a "strawman." I have built many in my time, but that was not one. It seems you are trying to build one here, but you have a problem. Your straw is all wet and will not stand up.

Debbie,

Lin is not "spot on" here. It is true we have problems, but not all is bad. Our seminaries do a good job in fulfilling their commission, in general.

For the most part we have great faculties. Some are pitiful. That is true. Some were political appointments.

We are sending out qualified ministers for the most part. Some who go out are no more qualified than when they started. That is just the nature of things.

A big problem we are experiencing is due to poor trustees being elected in recent years. Most of them (the bad ones) came to their post through political appointments because of personal agendas of some "power brokers" within our leadership. This is our greatest problem and must be handled quickly if we are to survive.

The Klouda situation is a perfect example of trustee failure. Her firing was one of the most stupid things to happen among us in a very long time. If one knows the players in this thing it is especially sickening. The hypocricy is so think it must be cut with a skinning knife.

Debbie, from time to time your church has to deal with things that are bad. I am sure they are dealt with properly. Yet, I am also sure many good things go on during the handling of the bad. That is the nature of institutions.

We have a problem. We need to get our heads out of the sand and fix it. End of story.

Lin is incorrect to paint this with such a broad brush.

cb

Belief Matters said...

My question for those who have the facts. How are you getting your facts? First hand, or from news sources?

Jeff

CB Scott said...

Jeff,

I cannot speak for all, but a few of us are firsthand. Some do speak with knowledge. Some speak as eye witnesses. Some of us were there.


cb

Lin said...

"A question is not a "strawman." I have built many in my time, but that was not one. It seems you are trying to build one here, but you have a problem. Your straw is all wet and will not stand up."

I thought it sad you asked the question in the first place. As if I had to endure the same thing in order to hurt for a sister in Christ. Why would you think it strange that a fellow believer would speak out for the injustice done to another believer?

Based on my experience in many organizations, I do not think the Klouda situation is isolated. It speaks to a mindset. As a matter of fact, it makes me wonder how much we do NOT know that would be of great concern.

Anonymous said...

One of the things that makes the Klouda situation difficult is that there are rules and laws regarding personnel issues. Even people close to the Kloudas may not know all that transpired or how it has been discussed since then.

BTW-does anyone know of anyone who is ensured a job for more than a year at a time. Seems to me like even most schools have done away with tenure or the expectation of a contract based on the previous year. I'm pretty sure pastors never had such a great deal either. Leadership changes, expectations change, needs change--and life goes on.

As for trustees, SBC messengers have a chance each year, through their votes, to effect change on boards. If there is an overwhelming view that there is a dangerous "mindset" made obvious by the Klouda situation, the it behooves Southern Baptists to be prudent in who they elect--else they be involved in micromanagement by "isolated" messengers who decide on which issues to launch crusades.

As for ministers and teachers who have at one time felt wronged by a church or administration, it happens. Perhaps Wade and sympathizers should look into establishing a huge fund for regular support of persons who have suffered.

Lin, you can't know everything. In fact, if you do, you have way too much time on your hands. Southern Baptists have one of the most efficient missions enterprises in the Kingdom and that's because we cooperate, we choose to cooperate, and in doing so, we give up what might be considered our individual "rights to know" everything.

Unless you can come up with a better system of running our entities like the seminaries and mission boards, I think the trustee system works just fine.

Belief Matters said...

Thanks CB, I just wondering how Lin knows it all. Lin appears to be project her own feelings and draws conclusion based on other experiences. She makes assumptions.

Jeff T

Anonymous said...

An earlier post on this thread characterizes one women's response as "emotional" and now Lin is said to "project her own feelings" and "draws conclusion based on other experiences. She makes assumptions."

So...if you don't like what someone says or don't want to take the time to respond, just point out their "emotions" and "feelings" as if to invalidate their manner of discussion, if not their ideas.

I realize this is broad and doesn't describe all of the discussion, but please, be careful.

Belief Matters said...

Thanks for the caution. I certainly did not mean as negative as it sounds. We all to a degree project our feelings, and our bias.

CB Scott said...

Lin,

I never said the Klouda case was isolated. It is not. Sinful things have always happened in the SBC. I well know Sheri Klouda is not alone in such things as have happened to her.

In no way am I saying you have to endure the "same thing to hurt for a sister in Christ."

I will say you have to have facts specific to the situation to ever effect change and remedy the problem that brought about the situation in the first place.

Also, you do not burn the whole village. Everything about our seminaries is not wrong. Some things are. We need to deal with what is wrong. I have had far too much experience with a scorched earth approach. Deal with that which is wrong and leave that which is right alone and support it with all your heart. I think that would be a better way this time. We certainly failed in that area in the past.

One more thing, there is a great deal you do not know. Be glad you don't. It can leave one jaded and very cynical. When one becomes that way one becomes easy prey for Satan. At that point you have to deal with your own sinful heart and that can take a very long time. It simply is not worth it.

cb

Lin said...

"Even people close to the Kloudas may not know all that transpired or how it has been discussed since then."

Again, you are being purposely vague here. You are insinuating there is more to this... that if known would change our views. This is not nice...especially as 'anonymous'. If you know something, say it and use your name.

"As for ministers and teachers who have at one time felt wronged by a church or administration, it happens. Perhaps Wade and sympathizers should look into establishing a huge fund for regular support of persons who have suffered."

'Felt' wronged? So this is just about Dr. Klouda's hurt feelings?

Your last sentence is not a bad idea at all even if you meant it as sarcasm. It reminds me of the early church in Acts where they shared and helped each other as needed. Only in this case, it is one part of the Body doing injustice to another part of the Body.

"Lin, you can't know everything. In fact, if you do, you have way too much time on your hands."

Huh?


"..., we choose to cooperate, and in doing so, we give up what might be considered our individual "rights to know" everything."

Scroll up and reread the comment on Group Think. There is also an excellent training video on Group Think about the Challenger disaster and why it happened. (Hint: No one would ask hard questions because they did not want to be 'divisive')

"Unless you can come up with a better system of running our entities like the seminaries and mission boards, I think the trustee system works just fine."

Thanks, but I have already found one. I support a specific missionary group that mentors native pastors and the leader does not live in a mansion nor expect a six figure salary. These folks know how to stretch a dollar and they are under serious accountability.

Debbie Kaufman said...

CB: I think you had better reread my comment. The straw man argument that I was speaking about was the comment made by Belief Matters that he/she was concerned for the hatred for the leaders that has been shown. And I think we have more than just a problem. I wouldn't even begin to compare SWBTS's problems to our church. Not even close.

I also did not think Lin was speaking of all our seminaries. She can correct me if I'm wrong. I have not mentioned other seminaries only SWBTS, and since you described them as giving the best education in the world, then women deserve that best as well.

Lin said...

"One more thing, there is a great deal you do not know. Be glad you don't. It can leave one jaded and very cynical. When one becomes that way one becomes easy prey for Satan. At that point you have to deal with your own sinful heart and that can take a very long time. It simply is not worth it."

CB, Thanks for your comment. I agree with it all...especially the above. God is on His Throne, totally Sovereign and is going to burn all this up one day.

Speaking up for justice should never make one cynical even if justice is not served here. It is our duty to one another as brothers and sisters in Christ to look out for each other.

Anonymous said...

Lin,
Whether you like it or not, if you are a member of a Southern Baptist church and that church supports contributes to the Cooperative Program then you do financially support the seminaries and the missions agencies of the SBC, even if it's in a small way compared to the 40-some odd thousand other churches.

If it's like I suspect and you really don't care for the Southern Baptist way of doing things (I'm meaning to be specific here and refer to the way we elect trustees to have oversight of our entities), why are you a Southern Baptist? This is in response to your statement about the mission organization you said you support.

Why don't you, or your church, if your church feels as you do, switch denominations or something? Just curious.

CB Scott said...

Lin,

Some have been standing up for others all of their lives. At times even to the point of risking all. Everyone I know that has lived such a life has, at one time or another, become cynical. It goes with the territory.

It is really hard when a person is not even willing to stand up for themselves. It also makes it tough when you wind up standing alone due to cowards and liars.

Then you find yourself becoming weak in your own faith. That makes for a long road home.

cb

Anonymous said...

Lest anyone be confused, I don't know anything about the Klouda situation except that which has been discussed in this blog and others and in various news stories and in the actual court documents. What I said in an earlier post was:

"Even people close to the Kloudas may not know all that transpired or how it has been discussed since then."

It would be naive for anyone to think they know every bit of the discussion between Dr. Klouda and administrators in the days before and since her situation. I would imagine, like I said in the first graph of that posting, that many of the meetings involving the issue were closed to all but the trustees because it is a personnel issue. I would also believe that at a certain point Dr. Klouda has been told by her lawyers to quit discussing the case.

So--I all meant is that in most situations we simply cannot know all there is to know by all parties involved. Therefore my comments about trustees being empowered, etc.

Debbie Kaufman said...

CB: I still have a high respect for you. You and I disagree, but many times also agree. It's not that we agree that gives me the respect I have, but the fact that you do not talk off the top of your hat,you were there during the CR and you aren't afraid to admit where things are both right and wrong, then and now. I just think that SWBTS needs an overhaul. SWBTS needs to make things right with Sheri Klouda, something that the powers that be have not done. This program is not giving women it's best in the world education, in my opinion. It's sending a loud message, and that is just putting salt in the Klouda wound.

Anonymous(which one I don't know) Are you Southern Baptist?

Debbie Kaufman said...

Speaking up for justice should never make one cynical even if justice is not served here. It is our duty to one another as brothers and sisters in Christ to look out for each other.

Amen Lin. And the first part of your comment should be put on a poster and hung up. It should be our prayer.

Anonymous said...

Yes. First generation. Long enough to be able to identify battle wounds, however.

Lin said...

"Whether you like it or not, if you are a member of a Southern Baptist church and that church supports contributes to the Cooperative Program then you do financially support the seminaries and the missions agencies of the SBC, even if it's in a small way compared to the 40-some odd thousand other churches."

My church does but I do not. And there are many in many churches who do not. We designate our tithe dollars to church budget only. What shocked me the most was to find some senior members do the same thing. If all this 'lifestyle of the rich and famous' and 'Lording it over' does not end, it may not be long before the fuel supply is seriously low and then, perhaps, changes will be made.

I can remember reading of some large Baptist churches that give a very small percentage to CP.


"If it's like I suspect and you really don't care for the Southern Baptist way of doing things (I'm meaning to be specific here and refer to the way we elect trustees to have oversight of our entities), why are you a Southern Baptist? This is in response to your statement about the mission organization you said you support."

The mission organization I support is Baptist but not part of the CP.

Not all Baptist churches are exactly alike. Baptist churches are autonomous. Some have 'earthly priests' or CEO's. Mine does not.

"Why don't you, or your church, if your church feels as you do, switch denominations or something? Just curious."

Why? I can't be excommunicated from the SBC, can I? :o)

Lin said...

"Then you find yourself becoming weak in your own faith. That makes for a long road home."

Then let us pray for one another. Gal 6:9


Grace and Peace to you.

CB Scott said...

Anony,

Why should Lin leave the SBC? Why should her church? There have been many churches in the SBC that did not send one penny of their CP money to seminaries. That is a fact.

Why can't Lin just take a longer look at the situation, adapt, and improvise? If some things do not change we all will be doing just that, because we are going to eat each other alive.

I am not in conflict with all she is saying. Ther is sin in our camp and we do need to deal with it, but we do not need to burn the whole village. There are also many good things going on right now. The new degree at SWBTS is one of the good things. The Klouda situation was due to very poor trustees.

cb

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 226   Newer› Newest»