First, as reported by SBC Outpost, Dr. Patterson participated in this exchange with attorney Gary Richardson regarding Dr. Klouda's work in the classroom as she taught Hebrew to future pastors:
Question (Richardson): Well, I’m interested in whether or not you claim here under oath today, Dr. Patterson, that you mentioned to these two gentlemen (Blaising and Allen) any concern about her (Klouda) violating the stipulation that she was placed under?
Answer (Patterson): Yes, I did mention it to both of them.
Q. And what — what is it you say you said to them?
A. I don’t recall the exact conversation, of course, but I did say to them that I felt that there was violation taking place perhaps, and furthermore, that I felt that it was inappropriate ecclesiologically for her to be in this position.
Q. And what was the violation that you claim here today that you told them that you thought was taking place?
A. I believe that she was indulging in the exposition of the scripture.
Q. Giving her own conclusions?
A. Yes, I’m sorry.
Dr. Klouda, a Hebrew professor, trained at Criswell College in the subject of Hebrew, bestowed the Master's and Doctoral Degrees from Southwestern Theological Seminary for her expertise in the Hebrew language, hired unanimously by the trustees of Southwestern Seminary Theological Seminary to teach Hebrew - 'indulged' in drawing conclusions about the sacred text.
Ladies and gentlemen, last time I checked the sacred text was written in Hebrew. How in heaven's name can you study the Hebrew of the sacred text and NOT draw conclusions. I find this absolutely incredulous.
Second, and probably even worse, is this exchange between Klouda's attorney Gary Richardson and Paige Patterson (complete and unedited)
Question(Richardson): Would think in regards to the issue of -- of women in the church, that you and Paul Pressler have acted responsibly for the convention?
Answer (Patterson): I certainly hope we have, we've done our very best.
Q. And -- and I think that you would agree that- that Wade Burleson would feel that he's done his very best, wouldn't you?
A. Yes, he probably does, uh-hu. I'm not judging his heart. That's only known to God. That's something he does fairly regularly with regard to me.
Q. On Page 1595?
Q. In view of time, I'll try to rush through this, but the third paragraph down it says, There it is. There is the narrow, biblical interpretation that says it all and causes our convention some serious problems. No woman shall have authority over a man. Did I read that correctly -- correctly?
Q. And he (Wade Burleson) is saying that in his opinion, that you have gone far beyond the prohibition of women pastors?
A. Apparently that's what he's saying.
Q. And, of course, you disagree?
Q. According to Patterson's rigid and narrow interpretation of the Bible, it is wrong for a woman to serve in any position of authority over a man; is that an accurate statement?
A. In the church, yes.
Q. How about anywhere else?
A. Well I don't take a position about anything else, because the Bible is not crystal clear on it. The Bible does say in the Book of Isaiah, that it is something of an indication of a wicked society when women rule over them.
Patterson claims to not 'take a position about anything else' (i.e. in terms of women being in 'authority' over a man) BUT THEN GOES ON TO SAY IT IS AN INDICATION OF A WICKED SOCIETY WHEN WOMEN RULE OVER MEN. Further, throughout the deposition Patterson made remarks about how society is not following the standards of God's word, but the church must follow the infallible Word of God when it comes to women not having any authority over men.
For Paige Patterson, and men who believe like he, the issue has never been about Senior Pastors. That is only a smoke screen. The issue, pure and simple, is this: No woman shall have any position of authority over a man - period. If this attitude is allowed to prevail in the SBC then we will be no less culpable than when we allowed leaders of the SBC to convince us that slaves should be subjected to their masters.
In His Grace,